The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Innovation Journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dnordfors (talk · contribs)
• OpenFuture (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We need help to end the RfC. It was previously subject for Dispute Resolution which was constructive. The Dispute Resolution has been closed. However, the dispute seems to continue on the RfC page. The editor who initiated the RfC says I have no right to suggest that the RfC should be considered resolved.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Previous Dispute Resolution was successful in bringing the issue forward.

How do you think we can help?

Stay in the loop until the RfC is resolved. Please check the RfC page.

Dnordfors has already brought Innovation Journalism up once here, and it was dealt with. What exactly the dispute is this time is not explained. He has been asked to wait for the end of the AfD already, but he did not. As far as I can tell this is all an attempt either of Wikilawyering around normal Wikipedia policies, or simply an attempt to waste the time of everybody involved. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. As Noleander said in the last DRN case, please wait for the AfD discussion to run its course before bringing this to DRN. An AfD discussion cannot be closed (although there are rare exceptions) until a site administrator closes it. A deletion discussion runs for around a week before an uninvolved administrator evaluates the consensus, and decides whether to keep or delete the article. For more information, see Wikipedia:AFD#How an AfD discussion is closed.--SGCM (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Further, if you can't seem to get the *fD to close, consider filing at Requests for closure. Hasteur (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, this is useful information. It is the first time I get involved in something like this, I am learning as we go. I did not know who had the right to close the discussion, but I have now learned it through your comment. If I get this right - here is the list of English Wikipedia site administrators: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers/sysop&limit=5000 . If this is the correct list, then neither OpenFuture nor I have the privileges to close the AfD - correct?

The initial application for deletion claim was filed on Sep 10 - two weeks ago. I believe enough has been said to judge if the claim for deletion stands or not. The discussion climate between OpenFuture and myself is not good, there is a lack of trust. Might it be time to apply for a site administrator to look at the discussion and close it? --dnordfors (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The AfD will likely be closed soon by an administrator, or relisted once more to invite further comments from other third party editors. If the administrator decides that no consensus has been established, then the discussion will be closed as no consensus and kept by default, as per Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus. --SGCM (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Broadsword (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ZarlanTheGreen (talk · contribs)
• Trofobi (talk · contribs)
• JHunterJ (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute over the content of Broadsword (disambiguation) and application of MOS:DAB. The disputed content is the disambiguation between the types of swords that might have been referred to as "broadswords".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Well aside from trying to discuss it, I put this on Wikiquette assistance, but nothing much had happened except for [ Deleted comments about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC) ] , until the process of Wikiquette assistance was eliminated, recently.

How do you think we can help?

I dunno. That's why I'm asking for help. [ Deleted comments about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC) ]

[ Deleted comments about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC) ]

You did so without bothering to get me to do so myself. You asked, but did not allow me to do so, as I clearly stated I would. I shall restore a part of the opening statement, which DID discuss content.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

a significant edit [was made] to Broadsword_(disambiguation). I found it to remove a lot of information and removing certain good distinctions that was present in the old version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarlanTheGreen (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The changes I made were according to the MOS:DAB (like I understand it), especially the clear and simple formatting and wording shown in the examples there. I have seen by the edits of George Ho and JHunterJ, that I there were better ways to interpret the MOS:DAB and fully agree with their changes. The previous version(s) (123) had some MOS:DAB-unsupported or outdated links (long/great/short-sword redirs and other), missing links (the ships & Jethro Tull), and in my eyes especially a confusing formatting and wording. Can give more details & difflinks if required, but have not much time for that within the next days.--Trofobi (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page cleaned up per WP:MOSDAB. Entries not ambiguous with "broadsword" removed, remaining entries formatted. – JHunterJ (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

Right now I am waiting for opening comments by JHunterJ and Trofobi before opening this up for discussion, so please be patient. In the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the "guide for participants" at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I just posted a reminder on Trofobi's talk page that we are waiting for him. If I don't get a reply in a day or so we will proceed without him. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, now that everyone has weighed in, I am opening this for discussion. First I would like to ask, did everybody read "Guide for participants" at the top of this page as I requested? Did you read the part that says...

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.

ZarlanTheGreen, your initial statement doesn't contain a single word explaining what you want the page to look like and why you want it that way. It is 100% about the behavior of other editors. You need to go back, delete it, and re-write it so that it does not contain the words "He" "Him" "They", or the names of any other editors. What I would like to see is a diff showing a point at which the page was the way you think it should be. (if you don't know how to make a diff, just give the exact time and date of your edit.) Then add a brief explanation as to why you think your version should be retained.

Trofobi, much of your initial statement is rebutting ZarlanTheGreen talking about other editors. While this is a natural thing to do, I am going to ask you to instead ignore any such comments. They will be removed, (if not by the person who writes them I will remove them myself), and responding just encourages the unacceptable behavior.

I would also like to see from you a diff showing a point at which the page was the way you think it should be and a brief explanation as to why you think your version should be retained.

JHunterJ, the first half of your initial statement is just the sort of thing I am looking for. Could you delete the later comment about user behavior and expand a bit on what part of WP:MOSDAB we are talking about? I think I know, but I want it from the participants. When someone says a policy is being followed and another editor says it is not, I always like to focus on the exact wording showing which part of the policy and the exact wording of the edit in question.

What I am asking you all for is specific versions of content and specific wording of policy, with no references to user behavior. After we get the content dispute straightened out, if there are still user conduct issues I will advise you as to where to go with those.

Thanks for your patience. We will get this resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not fully understand the function of this noticeboard, thus the... "inappropriate" opening comment. Sorry about that. I still would like to report the behaviour, but it seems that has been deemed unproductive, and I can't say I don't understand. Either way, I'm quite willing to go the route of talking about the content. As to replacing the opening comment... Is that really appropriate? Amending what I say, sure, but replacing it sounds a bit like rewriting history. If you insist, I nevertheless will. It should be noted, however, that I did, if briefly (though to be fair, that is at it should be, for the opening comment) comment on the issue of the content.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that you deleted those parts, with the motivation that asking for the voluntary removal got no result. That is ridiculous! I questioned if it should be done, but nevertheless stated that I still would do so, if you indicated that you insisted it be done, despite my misgivings.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I deleted part of my statement above by request. No problems with the current entries have been identified, and the removed entries were removed because they are not ambiguous with "broadsword" according to the linked articles (see MOS:DABMENTION; I also added a line to WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created based on the discussion at Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation)). I am not aware of any policy-based problems with those removals, nor any other problems with the page, so I'm not clear what dispute needs to be resolved. – JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned, MOS:DABMENTION deals with how to include topics that do not have an article of their own (which is not true of any of the topics that are, or where, linked to, on the page discussed) and not what should or shouldn't be included. Thus it is completely irrelevant. The line in Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Examples_of_individual_entries_that_should_not_be_created, however, is highly relevant, but it can hardly be said to reflect proper wikipedia practice, policy or guideline, given that it was just put there. It might become an accepted guideline, but I wouldn't really count it as such, just yet. Besides, doing so would open the door to winning these kind of arguments, simply by making up, or changing, rules oneself. While one should assume good faith, the rules should nevertheless be set in such a way as to avoid the consequences of the inevitable occasions of bad faith ...not to mention that actions that has the same result as those made in bad faith, can be made in good faith. Now could you please mention any bit of policy or guideline that supports you, which is relevant or accepted?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, ZarlanTheGreen? Can you cite a specific edit and a specific policy it violates? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Well, lets see...

• The old version grouped different types of things. The newer edits (any other than my reverts) just puts all links as a mere list, in a seemingly arbitrary order, without any apparent from of organization (which goes against MOS:DABMENTION#Organization).
• The entry Arming Sword was removed [ Deleted comments about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC) ] I still object to the removal, and argue that several other sword types should be added (for the same reason), though probably not with individual links to all, but rather an explanation of the qualities that they share, or something.

There may be more, that I can't think of right now, but that should cover most of it, I think.

I would also like to add that the removal of the Jethro Tull song was a somewhat clumsy oversight, which I would have appreciated if someone had pointed out to me before. I agree that, that entry should stay there. Thank you Trofobi, for pointing that out (if a bit late).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

To the points:

• MOS:DABORDER uses groups (sections) for long disambiguation pages (#2), and the broadsword disambiguation page is not long, so it's faster for the reader to keep the few entries in one group (just a mere list), and arrange the entries there (not arbitrarily but) per MOS:DABORDER (#3) – topics with articles first, with the synonyms like Dao next, and the mentions last (and the newly-added surname holder in a separate section).
• Add the information about arming swords being known as broadswords to the article Arming sword, and I'll be happy to restore the entry to the dab page myself.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• You say it's not long? Why? I say it's certainly long enough. Just look at other disambiguation pages of similar length. As to the order... "Dao next"? Are you kidding me? There are several ships and even BroadSword Comics (neither of which can be called "synonyms", by any stretch) before Dao (Sword) appears! What you say, clearly isn't true.
• Please explain why Arming sword has to mention them being called broadswords. Please point to some wikipedia policy or guideline (that hasn't been just recently been added, but which is clearly an accepted part of wikipedia), which verifies this. If you do so, I will thank you for informing me, and gladly back down on this point.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created has been clarified based on your misunderstanding of the disambiguation guidelines. Please point to some Wikipedia policy or guideline that says we can add anything to disambiguation pages even when there is no indication of ambiguity. "Dao" is a synonym – it does not have the word "Broadsword" there. "BroadSword Comics" is not a synonym. "Who published that comic? BroadSword." And I am not kidding you; see if you can ratchet down the rhetoric. – JHunterJ (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created was not clarified. Before your edit, there was absolutely no mention of any requirement that it be mentioned in the article being linked (if you disagree, then please show me where such a mention existed). Thus you did not clarify something that it already said, but rather added something that wasn't previously present. I have no need to point to some Wikipedia policy or guideline that says we can add anything to disambiguation pages even when there is no indication of ambiguity ...as I have not made no such claim. I have no need to defend a position that I do not hold, or have ever held. Also, as you can see here (especially in my replies to Czarkoff), I have no problems with having to verify that the topics belong in the DAB, and I have never said or claimed anything to the contrary. As to Dao being a synonym and BroadSword comics not being a synonym... That's exactly what I said. Neither the ships, nor BroadSword comics, are synonyms (nor is Dao, but it's at least somewhat closer to being one). Also note that it says the "recommended order", not the "required order" ...and MOS:DABORDER#When_to_break_Wikipedia_rules: "However, for every style recommendation above, there may be pages in which a good reason exists to use another way; so ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them." You need to consider the reasons behind the recommendations, instead of just sternly demand that they be followed to the letter. Why should it be in the current order? Why is the old order bad? The issue to consider, is the usefulness to the reader. How clear and easily readable it is, that is. As to my rhetoric... What rhetoric? Me saying "are you kidding me"? If so, then your standards are extremely strict and you break them yourself, and not just in that comment ...but that's beside the point, is it not?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good, so we're in agreement that there's no reason to include "arming sword". Yes, recommended order, and lacking any reason to do so, you need to stop sternly and extremely strictly demanding that all other editors leave your edits alone. – JHunterJ (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Where did I ever say that Arming Sword shouldn't be included? Quit putting words in my mouth! As to other editors "leaving my edits alone"... What on earth are you talking about? What edits of mine? I did not make an edit that I am defending. Trofobi made an edit that you are defending, and I am criticising. I am defending the old consensus against what I see as bad modifications (right now there is no consensus. There is discussion, i.e. this, to get to one). You still haven't shown that the DAB isn't long, or explained why it this ordering is better. Surely Dao should come before such things as ships? When one thinks of "broadsword", the first thing that comes to mind is a sword.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for interjection, but in my opinion this particular dispute boils down to two questions:

1. Do the reliable sources support the claim that removed entries (Arming sword and Dao (sword)) are indeed referred to as "broadsword"?
2. If so, does this statement belong to DAB page or broadsword article?

I would kindly ask parties (primarily ZarlanTheGreen, per WP:BURDEN) to provide the succinct answers to these questions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I can answer the second question: the statement(s) belong on Arming sword and/or Dao (sword), and once there, the (brief) entry or entries would be added to the disambiguation page as Wikipedia topics ambiguous with the title. – JHunterJ (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are great amounts of sources that say that arming swords (and longswords and the such) are called broadswords. In fact wiktionary rather annoyingly only gives that meaning, for the term "broadsword" (much like merriam-webster, dictionary.com, oxforddictionaries.com ...not to mention several books about the middle ages, and most fiction within the fantasy genre (just noting a few examples): fantasy games, such as World of Warcraft, Diablo, pretty much any fantasy role playing game (including all editions of Dungeons and Dragons)... tons of books about the middle ages (or swords or history), but that's a bit harder to verify, with just google. Also, I would like to point out that it is used this way in this clip from a notable (if not accurate) "documentary". If nothing else, I should say that those sources (which are merely the tip of the iceberg. A few of the examples I could find, on short notice) prove that it is a common enough use of the word "broadsword", to be notable enough to merit mention on the disambiguation page, I think (I'd understand being asked to verify that this use of the word broadsword is inaccurate, but that it isn't common? I am surprised that anyone would doubt it, quite frankly). As to Dao (sword)... well if you disagree, then I suggest you take it up its own article, where it is noted that Dao are "/.../often called a broadsword in English translation/.../"--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Both "Arming sword" and "Dao (sword)" had been marked "^{[dubious – discuss]}" since 6 July 2011 – no change or discussion had been on that issue since then, therefore I felt safe to remove the "Arming sw." link, where in the whole article is no mention of "broadsword". And as I have added both links to Classification of swords & Types of swords, any visitor looking for any kind of "broad" sword will now easily find the relevant existing articles.

As to Guy's request for a difflink to the version I prefer: the current version (compared to that how I found the article on 28 August 2012)‎. For a brief explanation why it should be retained pls see my opening comment. --Trofobi (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@ZarlanTheGreen: could you please explicitly name secondary sources unambiguously connecting term "broadsword" with "arming sword" and "dao sword"? We can't make judgment on "plenty" of sources, and those you've linked are very ambiguous. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your request. The sources I linked to, pointed out that countless sources say that straight, cutting, swords (a category into which arming sword, quite clearly, falls), are classified by many, as being "broadswords". Why should they be precise in specifying arming swords? They cover a variety of swords, which clearly includes arming swords. As to Dao... Seriously, just put the words "Dao" and "broadsword" into google, and you'll see that its a word commonly used for it. I'll find you some specific sources, but I've got an appointment I've got to get to right now, so I'll do it later today (or tomorrow).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The way you connect these is known on Wikipedia as improper synthesis. I request sources that explicitly include into definition the terms you want to add to the DAB page in question. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Improper synthesis deals with improperly combining information from several different sources. That is clearly not relevant. The sources I cited all, individually, state much the same thing. One of them (the documentary) even goes so far as to say "broadsword", when talking about what is clearly an arming sword. An Oakeshott type XIV I'd say. That or a type XVI (can't be anything else, other than maybe a blade outside the typology, which happens, but I doubt it). This is also true of the Diablo and WoW references. Many of the sources state that straight cutting swords are broadswords. Arming swords are straight and cutting, thus they are clearly included. If you wish to claim that this conclusion is original research (to my mind, it's like saying that cucumbers have a feature, because a source says all vegetables do), then that's fine. You'll have to use something other than WP:SYNTH to argue that, however. Either way, this could be solved in a way I suggested earlier: "I still object to the removal, and argue that several other sword types should be added (for the same reason), though probably not with individual links to all, but rather an explanation of the qualities that they share, or something.". I.e. put in a mention of "straight cutting swords" instead (maybe not with that exact wording though. I suspect it can be expressed better). Note that this would not be removing arming sword. Sure there would no longer be an arming sword link, but it would simply be included in a different way. I assume you would have no objection to that?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OTOH, I'd rather not expand this DR to the content of arming sword. The sources belong there, not on broadsword (disambiguation). If that article arming sword says that they are known as broadswords, then the dab page includes it. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I am not an involved party if there's a dispute over whether arming sword is to say so. :-) – JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily IMO. I would better disambiguate the possible meaning in broadsword article and generalize the DAB if such sources are found. Anyway, the issue is a bit wider then this DAB, and I want to get it settled here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't disambiguate different topics in articles (except in hatnotes). But if we want to discuss the contents of broadsword instead, then I should be removed from the involved parties list, since I am not involved in any content dispute for broadsword. – JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rather than fighting over the content of Broadsword (disambiguation) why not work together to improve Classification of swords and Types of swords, and then make Broadsword (disambiguation) say whatever those two pages say? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about making the dab page say what those articles say. Not all types of swords would be ambiguous with "broadsword", and little or nothing of the classification of sword would be usefully "sayable" on the disambiguation page. Classification of swords and Types of swords can certainly be improved by interested parties, but unless new "broadsword" ambiguity is introduced, those improvements wouldn't affect a navigational page that already links to them. – JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Because that is a separate, if connected, issue. I also agree with JHunterJ and Trofobi on this. Thanks for the suggestion though.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that both articles (Classification & Types) really need improvement, both having multiple issues – the now removed merge proposal seems no bad idea, but just like the May 2007 ref request noone cared. Perhaps someone could ask some of the earlier main authors like Dbachmann to take it up again? (That cleanup should also include List of bladed weapons#Swords.) But I, too, don't expect effects on this DAB page discussion. Like R'n'B stated earlier: The question is if there are reliable sources that "Zoobie" is also called "broadsword" – if so, this info belongs into the Zoobie article, which then will rightfully be mentioned in the broadsword DAB.

So is that now the final remaining question – if "Arming sword" be added or not? And then this will be settled? --Trofobi (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. There is also the issue of the order and grouping (or lack thereof) of similar things. It is the more important issue though, IMO, and one on which I suspect I have dealt with all objections in my response to Czarkoff above, so that it will not only be included, but in a better manner than it previously was ...or so I hope.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

[ Comment deleted. Talk about article content, not about other editors. ] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

We already have an answer regarding " the issue of the order and grouping (or lack thereof) of similar things." MOS:DABORDER is quite clear: "Long dab pages should be organized into subject sections, as described below." and "Longer pages should be broken up by subject area." This isn't even close to being a long dab page, and thus there should be no grouping of similar things. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not even close? Oh, I dunno about that Moss_(disambiguation), [[//]] (dunno why this link won't work. It says link exists when I try to include it, and everything), Oakes, Jackson_Square and Gaja_(disambiguation) (to take a few examples at random), are quite close. Indeed some of them are quite a bit shorter. I say that the broadsword DAB is long enough to merit breaking up in groups of topics of a similar nature, and many a DAB of similar length, or shorter, are organized in such a manner. Why? Because that is more reader friendly, gives you a better overview. MOS:DABORDER isn't as clear as you claim. It says "longer". It doesn't say what longer means. Not only does it not give a specific length (probably because such a thing would be regarded as a bad idea), but it doesn't even give any form of indication of how long "longer" is. Thus you cannot say that MOS:DABORDER clearly says that it isn't longer. What matters is, if it is long enough, so that groupings would assist readers and/or if a lack of groupings would negatively impact readability, rather then the exact length (and if the exact length is the issue... well check the examples I noted).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Thank you for clarification, Guy – so could you perhaps sum up, which questions on Broadsword (disambiguation) you still regard as unsolved? And as already asked on the talk page^[1]: Shouldn't this section here be renamed WP:DRN#Broadsword (disambiguation) instead Broadsword? Also for later archiving/search options. --Trofobi (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

ShelfSkewed has, obligingly, clearly demonstrated that articles linked to, need to mention the disambiguation(as per WP:DABRELATED). Thus I now accept that, that requirement is, indeed, an accepted guideline of wikipedia. I still argue for the compromise above, about mentioning "straight cutting swords". However, there is an issue of where that should be verified. That it can, easily, be verified, is quite clear. I have done so above, with great ease. The only issue is where. By the same token, Dao should clearly be there, as the article prominently mentions that it is often translated as "broadsword". Any need for verification should obviously be dealt with, in the article for Dao, rather than the DAB page. As long as that is fixed, then the issue of which topics should be in the DAB should be dealt with. The only remaining issue is the organization.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that the issue of where to verify that "straight cutting swords" are, inaccurately, called broadswords has already been answered, in that it already is verified. An arming sword certainly is "A cutting sword with a broad blade", so it is verified, though as I suggested (as I have done twice before), one could add something along the lines of "Any cutting sword that is broader than a rapier" (while mentioning that it is a modern usage, that was not used historically), as individual mentions of all swords that qualify, might not be the best idea.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

...also, I noted that arming swords are, indeed, explicitly mentioned: "It must be noted, that the term broadsword was never used historically to describe the one-handed arming sword or short-sword. The short-sword was wrongly labeled a broadsword by antiquarians as the medieval swords were similar in blade width to the military swords of the day (that were also sometimes labeled as broadswords) and broader than the dueling swords and ceremonial dress swords." (I would argue that the term broadsword was never used historically to refer to swords for two hand either ...and that short-sword is also an erroneous term, but that is to be taken up at Classification of swords, not here)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

So, is there any chance that we have arrived at a compromise that everyone can live with? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The discussion of what should be included has thankfully been, more or less, solved. Now it's just an issue of how to include the topics, and then to apply that to the page. That should not be troublesome. The issue of the organization of topics, however, has still not been solved.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these current organization is one we can live with. We have only one user who dislikes it, but it is consistent with the current guidelines. – JHunterJ (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It is consistent with guidelines? Really? How so? MOS:DABORDER says that topics should be grouped. You say this DAB isn't long? On what grounds? Can you point to a part of the MOS:DAB that states the specific length which determines if a DAB is long or not? What about Moss_(disambiguation), [[//]], Oakes, Jackson_Square and Gaja_(disambiguation)] that are all DABs of similar, if not shorter length? The Broadsword DAB is long enough, that at least some grouping would aid in user readability, and no grouping makes user readability suffer. Thus is is long enough to need to comply with MOS:DABORDER.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to any other user who thinks this dab is too long to be ungrouped? – JHunterJ (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, current version is good. --Trofobi (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, here is how I think we should proceed. Remember, it says at the top of this page that This noticeboard is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy, so please take the following as a suggestion, not an order.

It appears that there is a weak WP:CONSENSUS against the changes that ZarlanTheGreen wants to make. I say "weak" because it looks like one against two. If it was one against ten or two against twenty I would be telling someone to accept the consensus. With 2:1 the following seems reasonable:

First, we should leave the page the way the 2:1 majority wants it while we discuss what to do next.

Second, ZarlanTheGreen should seriously consider whether to accept the majority version. This is not required but would end the dispute if he can live with that.

Third, if ZarlanTheGreen thinks that having more editors comment has a reasonable chance of ending up with the consensus swinging his way, he should post a Wikipedia:Requests for comment on the article talk page and we should close this DRN case while the 30-day period for the RfC plays out and we have a clear consensus. (There is no restriction against closing a DRN case and re-opening it as a new case later.) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

George Ho here) also expressly endorsed it. Probably plus three other editors on Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation) who are at the very least not unhappy with the current version. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There are 4 other deliberate supporters of the current version: George Ho(1)+(2), R'n'B, Ian.thomson, BD2412(1)+(2) and 2 4 more editors who at least do not support Zarlan's version: ShelfSkewed, EatsShootsAndLeaves(1) update: +(2), GimliDotNet, Rich Farmbrough. --Trofobi (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at all of the above diffs, and they are as Trofobi describes them. ZarlanTheGreen, do you happen to have diffs showing twenty or so editors supporting your version? Perhaps diffs showing that the above-mentioned individuals later changed their minds? If not, it is time for you to graciously follow the clear consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

+2 updated above (sorry, had forgotten them first) --Trofobi (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You are all quite incorrect on some points:

• The matter of the fact that Arming Sword and Dao should be in the DAB, has been settled in my favour. To say that the consensus is against me, thus isn't quite accurate.
• As to the matter of the order (which, no doubt, is what you are all referring to)... Can anyone show where anyone has addressed the point that the Broadsword DAB of a similar length, if not longer, as many other DABs that group topics, and that it isn't shorter than some set length in the MOS:DAB. Please remember that while WP:CONSENSUS does state that one doesn't need everyone to agree, it does state that all legitimate concerns be addressed. Those concerns have not even been mentioned at all, by any of you. Not even to dismiss it out of hand.
• The diffs of George Ho, Ian.thomson and EatsShootsAndLeaves (in the first diff mentioned) show them as editors who supported the early edits, without specifying that they support the organization in particular, and without having considered all the issues that have been discussed here. So I don't really think that those should count. Also Ian.thomson claimed that I made the first edit, which is clearly false, as I pointed out.
• As to R'n'B, that was an issue of whether it is proper to say what use of broadsword is inaccurate, which is completely irrelevant to the issue of the DAB. It's relevant to the classification of swords page, but not the DAB. Thus irrelevant.
• BD2412 actually supports my position. He states it would be quite appropriate to link to Classification of swords#Broadsword and backsword, concerning straight cutting blades ...and again, it wasn't about the organization, but rather what to include, which is an issue where we are all agreed already. Thus irrelevant.
• The mention of GimliDotNet is irrelevant. It wasn't a support of either version, but rather stating that there was an ongoing edit war. This was quickly followed by him admitting that he had misread the times. Either way, it was only about behaviour, not content and thus irrelevant.
• ShelfSkewed didn't support the current page in that diff, but rather supported a completely separate idea. This was not a support of the current version or the old one, and it certainly did nothing to support any form of order in the DAB and thus irrelevant.
• The second EatsShootsAndLeaves' diff was far from being clear about what it meant ...which is just one of the problems with it. Either way, it doesn't give support to, or address, the organization of topics in the DAB.
• Rich Farmbrough made no comment on the DAB, in any way. He only commented on behaviour stating that my behaviour was not a problem, if not impeccable. Thus irrelevant.

...so even though I am in the minority, almost all the diffs mentioned, don't show any form of support of the current order, or the idea that the DAB isn't long. Aside from three editors, all diffs are either about a different subject entirely, or about behaviour. Only three of the editors mentioned, stated any form of support for the present DAB, but it wasn't clear if they supported the order or that they were aware of, or considered, the issues that have been brought up here. So really, the only editors that, undoubtedly, support the current order, while having read all the issues raised, are: Trofobi, Guy Macon and JHunterJ. (also, it's annoying that these edits were under "Moving Forward", making me not notice them, at first)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• ZTG, there is no consensus with you to include arming sword prior to text on that article indicating its ambiguity with "broadsword". Since dao has such text, it has been on the disambiguation page.
• Can you provide the guideline that shows that the broadsword article is longer than some set length and thus requires groups? You have not addressed that legitimate concern, except for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and I fixed some of the problems in the other stuff).
• You have some questions about the support diffs for the ungrouped organization. Are there any editors who agree with your grouped organization on the broadsword dab?

-- JHunterJ (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• There is consensus to include Arming Sword. Not with a link to Arming Sword (though arming swords are, specifically and explicitly, mentioned in classification of swords), but rather a link to Classification_of_swords#Broadsword_and_backsword. There may be disputes of how to include it, but that's a different matter.
• I cannot point to a set length that Broadsword exceeds, just in the same way you cannot show a set length that it is shorter than. Because there is no set length, as I said.
• Wikipedia:Other stuff exists deals with including or deleting articles, rather than how to interpret guidelines ...and either way I don't see how what I mentioned would qualify, anyway. There is no definition of how long is "long" in the MOS:DAB. I pointed to some DABs, to give some indication of what qualifies as "long" ...and pointing out that, readability is what really determines what "long" is, here (as is quite clear, from the MOS:DAB. Especially MOS:DAB#When_to_break_Wikipedia_rules, which expressly says that usefulness to the reader is the principal goal of the guideline). It seems quite clear that a bit of grouping would improve readability, IMO.
• I have no questions about the support diffs! I point out that only three of them are actually relevant (though it's arguable if they should count). Do I have diffs that support me? Well when it comes to what to include: Yes. When it comes to the order: No.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Good news! this dispute has now arrived at a point where there is a disagreement about what the consensus is, and Wikipedia has a way to resolve disagreements about what the consensus is. We simply place a WP:RfC in the article talk page. Anyone can do this, but whoever does needs to take care that the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment are followed to the letter. Especially Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A disagreement about what the consensus is? What does that even mean? The fact that there's a discussion, clearly demonstrates that there is no consensus. There is a discussion to get to a consensus ...just like there has been from the start. A discussion that wasn't happening until I made this DRN.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there is a discussion does not demonstrate that there is no consensus. It merely demonstrates that there isn't a unanimous consensus.

Trofobi claims that there is an overwhelming consensus, that nobody agrees with your preferred version, and provided diffs that allegedly show evidence of this.

You (ZarlanTheGreen) claim that there is no consensus, that there exist editors who agree with your preferred version, and that most of Trofobi's diffs "are either about a different subject entirely, or about behaviour."

You can't both be right.

There is a phrase that describes the above. it is called "a disagreement about what the consensus is." We here at Wikipedia know exactly how to resolve disagreements about what the consensus is. We use RfCs.

Now it may very well be that both of you have a good-faith belief that your claims are factually correct. If that is so, an RfC will inform one of you that you are sadly mistaken and that you should reevaluate your apparent inability to identify and recognize a clear consensus.

It is more likely that one of you knows in his heart what the outcome of the RfC will be, in which case I would like to politely request that that editor stop wasting my time. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence that anyone but ZarlanTheGreen supports ZarlanTheGreen's preferred version. I am going to close this as "resolved" after giving everyone a chance to make final comments. ZarlanTheGreen is invited to post a RfC to demonstrate support for his preferred version. Other than that, it looks like we are done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy, for all your work, patience and knowledge you provided here as a volunteer!! --Trofobi (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity" and "When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus."

There is a discussion, and we haven't gone through all legitimate concerns. Thus no consensus.

Trofobi's diffs, are largely irrelevant, as I have clearly shown. Even should they be correct, that's beside the point.

Wikipedia:Consensus clearly states that we must go though all legitimate concerns. We don't have to all agree on them, but we have to discuss them. There is still one that hasn't been dealt with, thus no consensus. It doesn't matter that all except one agree. You have to "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns" to get consensus. Remember, consensus isn't a matter of a vote.

Oh, and also, concerning your statement "It is more likely that one of you knows in his heart what the outcome of the RfC will be", I would like to point you to Wikipedia:Civility. Condescension is not "civility".--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Demanding that everyone else accede to your preferences when no one else agrees with them is not civility. Wasting editors' time will eventually be met with brusqueness. What you see as condescension I think is just Guy's circumlocution to avoid actual incivility. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What part of "Wikipedia:Consensus clearly states that we must go though all legitimate concerns. We don't have to all agree on them, but we have to discuss them." is demanding that everyone else accede? I'm saying you have to discuss all the points, not agree with me on them. How is that demanding that you all agree with me? Quit putting words in my mouth, with your straw man arguments.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no independent final comments. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

ZarlanTheGreen, you have had ample time to discuss anything you wish to discuss, both here and on the article talk page. If something is undiscussed and you made no attempt to discuss it, that was your choice.

If something is undiscussed and you did make a good-faith attempt to discuss it but nobody responded (I looked and didn't find any examples of that), post the diffs on the article talk page showing that and I will ask them to respond. Note that they don't have to respond to every comment; it is perfectly fine to ignore WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior.

Falsely accusing a dispute resolution volunteer of incivility just because the consensus went against you is just silly. (Of course if you have a serious complaint, post it on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard, but be aware of WP:BOOMERANG.)

The consensus is against you. You should graciously accept that and stop fighting. You should also examine your own behavior; if I was able to look at the article talk page and see that the consensus is against you (note that I have said that several times and that nobody here but you disagreed), why were you unable to do so? Accepting defeat and moving on is an important part of being a Wikipedia editor.

There are several areas of Wikipedia where I argued for a particular change and found that the consensus was against me. In some cases I remain convinced that I am right. Nonetheless, I accept the basic fact of editing Wikipedia that sometimes I am not going to get my way. I advise you to also accept that fact. Walk away, find some other part of Wikipedia that interests you and needs help and make improvements.

I am closing this case as being resolved. If you have a problem with this, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Receive outside help for content disputes has a good explanation of your options, but be aware that you are likely to get the same answer no matter where you go with this. My advice is to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Daniyal Mueenuddin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• null (talk · contribs)
• Col Mumtaz Khan (talk · contribs)
• Green Cardamom (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Essentially I had some issues with the article and the original author gave an explanation which did not satisfy me so I requested a peer review but the author did not respond and kept removing my templates. I am not a vandal etc i am writing in good faith.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Written asking author to also request independent peer review and sought help from an individual editor User:Seraphimblade

How do you think we can help?

Please let editors/users make a general peer review and evaluation/feedback and if all or most agree on a consensus that the article is ok (it actually has good potential) by their lights, then I shall be very satisfied, thanks.

As far as I can tell Col Mumtaz Khan is saying that I am Daniyal Mueenuddin or associated with him (WP:COI). Khan hasn't provided specific evidence other than "feelings" and he says the article is "too intimate such as only someone v close to the subject would know" (in fact, everything is cited to verifiable sources). I am not Daniyal Mueenuddin or associated with him, I have an interest in world literature as my User page shows. I wrote the article after reading Mueenuddin's novel (it's how I learn more about an author). Green Cardamom (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• John Anderson (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Leech44 (talk · contribs)
• Fatherxray (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I (Fatherxray) inserted a line about the playing history of John Anderson see: 14:43, 5 June 2012‎ Fatherxray (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (11,459 bytes) (+79)‎ . . (Undid revision 490934827 by 68.98.3.136 (talk) with the following statement "inserted after consulting John Anderson in person. Unless he has changed his mind I see no reason to remove it." I in fact did speak with him before adding this. It seems to me that his wishes should take precedence over those of Leech44. I don't want to get into a pissing match with Leech44 who does not consider this a "notable sence", so I am sending the issue here for some dispute resolution. Should the input of the person whose bio it is have any input?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Some back and forth in the "View History" page

How do you think we can help?

Some one who with understanding of "Biographies of Living Persons" needs to make a call. I have read the BLP pages, and see no obvious guidance for resolving this. Someone who knows the rules pertaining BLP's should be able to quickly settle this.

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Vacy, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AussieLegend (talk · contribs)
• Benyoch (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'm having an issue with another editor at Vacy, New South Wales which has been exacerbated by some incivility from the other editor. The latest issue regards the wording of the introduction, which is supported by reliable sources. The other editor wants to "reinterpret" the wording of the sources and is concentrating on one source, rather than look at all the supporting sources. Vacy is legally recognised as a locality, which in Australia has a specific meaning, that being "a bounded area having a "rural" character. The introduction originally said "rural locality"; I removed "rural" which was redundant (a bit like "ATM machine" or "3 a.m in the morning") but was reverted by the other editor, who has now decided "rural place", which has an entirely different meaning, is more appropriate. His edits are interspersed with inappropriate comments in edit summaries,[2][3][4][5] baseless allegations,[6] and the odd personal attack.[7] Together these make it hard to carry on a civilised discussion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have raised matters on the article's talk page. The most recent issue is here, but the only response by Benyoch was baseless allegation,[8] after which he simply added undiscussed OR to the article.[9] I've also addressed problems on Benyoch's talk page (here) but that seems to be going nowhere.

How do you think we can help?

Honestly, I'm hoping that another voice will help raise the civility level a few points and allow us to discuss in a more productive manner.

Volunteer's Note: I have left another reminder for Benyoch. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Pendulum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chetvorno (talk · contribs)
• Maschen (talk · contribs)
• Martinvl (talk · contribs)
• 193.233.212.18 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is whether to include a particular equation in the first section of the article Pendulum. The article is very long and there is a second article, Pendulum (mathematics), for the mathematics, so the policy of the editors on my side of the dispute has been to keep the math in the article to a minimum.

User:193.233.212.18 has repeatedly inserted a second equation for the true period of the pendulum. His equation is already included in Pendulum (mathematics) but he feels it should be in Pendulum also. [ Removed comment about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC) ] There has been consensus on the Talk page from the beginning, with 5 editors opposed to inclusion of the equation and only User:193.233.212.18 in favor. [ Removed comment about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC) ]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss it with User:193.233.212.18 in a nonconfrontational manner on his Talk page, but he hasn't replied. He may not have a static IP; I think I've seen him with other IPs, but he doesn't sign his posts

How do you think we can help?

[ Removed comment about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC) ]

I also tried explaining to the IP at User talk:193.233.212.18 and talk:pendulum, and have reverted the IP number of times, and intend to stay out of it since the explanations have no effect. [ Removed comment about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC) ]

Wikipedia's first duty is towards the reader.

There are two articles related to the equations for the period of a pendulum, one is the article Pendulum and the other in the article Pendulum (mathematics). The second of these articles leads on from the first and is a more detailed account of the mathematics behind the pendulum. As a part-time physics tutor, I believe that 90% of Wikipedia readers researching pendulums will only read the first of these two articles and few will understand the second article.

At various times, four different formulae have been given in this article:

where is the arithmetic-geometric mean of 1 and .

My analysis of these formulae is as follows:

• The first of these formulae is the formula that is taught to 17 and 18 year-old physics students. (I am a part-time physics tutor for this age-group).

• The second of these formulae shows an approximation to the correction needed when the angle θ is not small and is a real-life example of the Taylor series, an essential part of university level maths for engineers and scientists. In practice this formula will ensure that a longcase clock is accurate to better than 0.1 second per day.

• The third of these formulae adds nothing to the second other than additional accuracy – of the order of microseconds per day.

• The fourth of these formulae give an exact solution, but its relationship to the first equation is rather cryptic. In addition the function M is not one that is taught in a standard engineering or physics degree course.

From the reader’s point of view, it is essential to include the first of these equations in the article as this is the formula that is always taught at school or university. Thereafter, either the second or the third is highly instructive (I prefer the second), but the fourth equation is only really of interest to applied mathematicians and in practice is only encountered in university maths classes, never in university (or school) laboratories. I feel therefore that the fourth of these equations is out of place in a general article about pendulums, but is ideal material for the article Pendulum (mathematics). Martinvl (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is being based on an ill posed question of whether or not the best formula ought to be taken out. [ Removed comment about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC) ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.233.212.18 (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I don't understand this dispute. What is the logic to include long and aproxmiate formulae instead of a short and exact formula. The fact that this formula is not taught to school students is not a real argument. This formula has just been discovered and published. It seems to me that it would be even more compatible with a high school program than the others. It is a matter of time. I think that it is interesting to have this formula in Wikipedia a early as that. The reader will be more attracted by the simplicity and beauty of this new formula than the length and complexity of the others. Moreover, knowing its quadratic convergence, it is more exact. What would we need more?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.100.138.214 (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. Edit warring is usually not something that DRN handles. Consider taking this to WP:ANI or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if it continues. It looks like consensus has already been established on the article talk page, so there's not much else that DRN can do.--SGCM (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --Chetvorno^TALK 14:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@SGCM: You wrote "It looks like consensus has already been established on the article talk page". I looked at the article talk page, and there were discussions 13 Sept to 18 Sept, and the final comment (18 Sept) was "I've initiated a DRN case". After that, there are no more comments on the article talk page. So it looks like the parties have simply shifted the discussion here to DRN and would like some uninvolved editors to help reach consensus. Or is there another talk page I'm overlooking? --Noleander (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment – The "Period of Oscillation" section of pendulum should be a summary of the entire Pendulum (mathematics) article (per WP:SUMMARY STYLE). I would expect to see the 2 or 3 most important formulae represented in that section. My opinion is that the two most important formulae are:

The other formulae, including the infinite series, seem a bit too arcane for a top-level summary ... because they do not occupy a position of prominence in the Pendulum (mathematics) article. I guess my point is that the underlying differential equation should be included in the top-level article before resorting to the infinite series or the "M" arithmetic-geometric mean formulae. [From uninvolved editor] --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@Noleander, in the discussion, of the four involved users, only User:193.233.212.18 supports inserting the following formula into the article, and has been edit warring to keep it in:

Which, as the discussion indicates, has no support from any of the other five editors. The consensus seem to be that the formula should remain in the Pendulum (mathematics) article and should not be placed in the Pendulum article. The Dispute Overview of the case states that the DRN case was filed mostly to stop User:193.233.212.18 from edit warring, which is something that DRN is not equipped to handle. If desired, I have no objections to the continuation of the DRN case--SGCM (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your view, @Noleander, I agree. As you pointed out, SGCM, this is not the venue for dealing with the editwarring problem, since we have consensus, so I would be agreeable to terminating the dispute resolution process. Sorry, I guess I should have read the requirements on this page closer. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to get picky, but ... :-) The first sentence of this case is "The issue is whether to include a particular equation in the first section of the article Pendulum." And the case was filed by one of the "majority" participants, not the IP. It is often the case that a majority will "gang up" on a single editor, yet sometimes the single editor is correct (I am not saying that is the case here). DRN is supposed to be a haven for such persecuted souls. For that reason, the case should stay open a few days and let the IP present some source-based arguments on why the AGM formula is important. --Noleander (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. Don't have any objections.--SGCM (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, good idea. --Chetvorno^TALK 07:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by 114.147.131.50 Sorry to involve myself in this dispute, but I was astonished to see an exact formula for the pendulum period. It is true that it is not in the standard school or university programs, but for the very simple reason that – no exact formula existed so far. The power of Wikipedia is in its evolution. As science has advanced to give us the exact formula, it should be with no doubt be mentioned here at the top, with the traditional school formulas below as a simplified formulas as it is done is any other article. 1:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.147.131.50 (talk)

Just to clarify, the exact formula that you mentioned used the arithmetic-geometric mean, which is just a handy way of writing the converging series approximation for the period (an elliptic integral) which has been known for a long time (1850ish I think). Pretty handy though. a13ean (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@IP: To justify inclusion of that AGM formula in the pendulum article, we need to see some source books that mention the AGM formula pretty prominently. For example, I'm looking at the Halliday/Resnick college physics text, and it includes the approximation for small angles; and it includes the infinite series, but it does not include the AGM formula. So that book suggest the AGM is not as important. If you could find a few introductory physics books that present the AGM formula with equal or greater emphasis than the infinite series, that could be persuasive. --Noleander (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear a pure soul able to appreciate the exact formula. Everyone else better stop wasting time searching for it in textbooks as is well explained in the AMS(59,8) article. [ Removed comment about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC) ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.233.212.18 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A possible compromise here is modify the pendulum article to state, in prose, that an "exact" formula exists based on the arithmetic-geometric mean, and link to the formula in the pendulum (mathematics) article. But I'm not sure about the word "exact" ... it may imply closed-form expression to some readers; but the AGM is generally not closed form: it usually requires infinite iteration. So the word "exact" may be misleading. How about "The period of a pendulum may also be calculated using an iterative algorithm, based on the arithmetic-geometric mean, which converges much more rapidly than the infinite series above." How does that sound? --Noleander (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Noleander's "compromise" suggestion seems acceptable to me mainly because it doesn't merely entail removing the best formula (that's simplest and "much more rapidly convergent" as is now being rightfully noted and properly emphasized). Furthermore, it's well referenced [ Removed comment about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC) ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.233.212.18 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Martin, Chet, Maschen (the other parties): Do you have any comment on the proposal to insert a prose sentence explaining the AGM formula and why it is significant? --Noleander (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@114.147.131.50: "Exact" is misleading. There is no closed form formula for evaluating the arithmetic–geometric mean. It may converge faster numerically though. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The formula is exact and the convergence is quadratic. [ Removed comment about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC) ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.233.212.18 (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer here; I just deleted a number of comments that violate DRN rules. As it says at the top of this page:

• What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.

• Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.

• Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".

Some of the removed comments were simply describing user behavior (allowable, but not here) while others were personal attacks, which are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. I am placing a warning on one user's talk page about violating WP:NPA. Please don't do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 2September 2012 (UTC)

In spite of the on-going discussion here User:193.233.212.18 continued to insert his additions even though there was consensus among the other editors that this was not the correct article for such information. As a result the article was locked making it impossible for User:193.233.212.18 to make his additions. The lock expired two days ago. Martinvl (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Melvin Tumin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jokestress (talk · contribs)
• Yaris678 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Melvin Tumin is an American sociologist whose work focused on race relations. His 1994 New York Times obituary gives an overview of his life. In 2012, 18 years after Tumin died, author Philip Roth revealed that an incident in Tumin's life inspired Roth's novel The Human Stain. A dispute has arisen as to whether it merits its own section, and if so, the title of the section, as well as the length in proportion to the work for which he was known before this month. Jokestress feels that one sentence should suffice to cover what amounts to trivia which was not reported in the media when Tumin was alive, with the bulk of the details at The Human Stain. Yaris678 feels the information merits its own section in Tumin's bio titled The "spooks" incident, with redundant information appearing at both Tumin's bio and the article on the novel. Jokestress feels a full section violates WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT, and the current title gives the impression that Tumin was guilty of something. A third opinion given by Gigs felt the section may be too long in proportion to the rest but did not imply any guilt on Tumin's part. We agreed to come here to get more feedback regarding this dispute. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page, Third opinion

How do you think we can help?

We'd like some uninvolved editors to determine how much weight should be given to Tumin's role in inspiring The Human Stain. Does it merit a sentence or two in his biography, or does it merit its own section called 'The "spooks" incident?'

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Diego Maradona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lsw10 (talk · contribs)
• Kevin McE (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user has repeatedly deleted many of my sources and descriptions on the article. My version of the article uses more references than his and still allows his to be included with making contradictions. His version makes impossible to add other popular views on the player. On top of that, the user has edited a section of the FIFA Poll made in 2000, only leaving the part that supports his views(the online poll) and leaving the FIFA magazine readers votes, and the experts votes out. There is no Website in the world that only refers to the online poll leaving out the rest. Pure vandalism. Another dispute of ours in the same article is that he has reverted my editing on an irrelevant reference from an article using the Castrol Rankings Website comparing Pele and Maradona. The article and Website did not support the description on the Wikipedia page saying "Maradona is the best ever" and it actually rated several other players above him. http://www.castrolfootball.com/legends/

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing with the other user in our talk pages and in the articles talk page.

How do you think we can help?

-Not permit deletion of legitimate references. -possibly make the article semi-protected if that will help, as it has also received vandalism by users who are not logged in.

Lsw10's edits had previously been identified by several visitors as having the ulterior motive of ensuring that description of Maradona's career makes lesser claims than that of Pele's. I believe him to be the IP who queried the description of having been called the greatest in the world on the talk page: this had previously been discussed at great length, and consensus was with the phrase. Lsw10 then edited the Pele article to that he is described as the greatest (no argument with the assertion that some people have said that), and set about removing the claim from the Maradona article: editing should not be motivated by such petty rivalry and while peacock terms should of course be avoided, desire to water down reported acclaim of a rival is an equally POV goal. It is equally accurate to say that Maradona (or Pele) has been said to be the best, or has been said to be one of the best: it is an editorial choice of prose, and once consensus has settled on one of the options, the authority of consensus in a stable article should be respected. This has not happened here.

• Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer and will be mediating this discussion, after we get opening statements from all parties involved. Also, please see WP: BRD. Electric Catfish² 17:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've requested an opening statement from the other user, as the bot has not notified him yet. Electric Catfish (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

We may start, if there is still a dispute going. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, which "visitors" told you that Lsw has "ulterior motives"? Electric Catfish (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, reverting edits that you don't agree with as vandalism is inappropriate. I don't see anyone saying anything about Lsw having "ulterior motives". There is an IP removing content, but it's not enough to justify protection, and I don't think that the IP is part of this content dispute. Electric Catfish (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This could be closed, considering the edit summary the user Kevin McE left when he posted his comment above, namely "But frankly, I've taken it off my watchlist, and couldn't give a flying fish any more about his jealousies". User talk:Moriori (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. If Kevin no longer cares about it, we can close it. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been a week. The parties of the dispute have lost interest in it. The case can be closed within 24 hours.--SGCM (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Diablo III (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Unnamed101 (talk · contribs)
• SubSeven (talk · contribs)
• ferret (talk · contribs)
• Torchiest (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the article Diablo 3, an author is cited talking about 0/10 reviews, this is a vague statement although clearly layed out on the article, (amazon and metacritic), although these are by themselves unreliable sources I have cited WP:RSOPINION to no avail.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

N/A

How do you think we can help?

Clearly defining if this falls within the realm of WP:RSOPINION, so that it may be decided whether to be included or excluded from the article.

Unnamed101 has tried to add the same material to the article NINE times, despite being patiently told at every turn why his edit is unacceptable. He is trying to cite Metacritic's and Amazon's user reviews of Diablo III. These user reviews are entirely self-published, with no editorial barrier, thus they cannot be cited per WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:SPS. I don't really know what else to say beyond that. If the arbitrator can figure out how WP:RSOPINION is in any way relevant here, as Unnamed101 claims, then I bow to your intellectual superiority. --SubSeven (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

User is adding user review citations to the article despise numerous editors informing him why they cannot be added. The Diablo 3 talk page has a FAQ specifically addressing this, as the article has a long history of SPAs attempting to get user reviews to be directly added to the article. WP:VG has established guide lines that the reviews cannot be used as a reliable source, nor are the individual users reliable sources. User continues to add the content despite a clear consensus on the talk page that he should not. He has violated 3RR once, and performed the same revert he violated RR3 over a day after his block expired.

In addition, the user has only included the two editors that reverted him today. User:Dp76764 and User:Torchiest have also undone his edit. -- ferret (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Please do not comment on another users opening statement.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It appears the bot didn't notify Subseven. I posted to his talk page. -- ferret (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This user was blocked for edit-warring, and as soon as their block expired, they immediate came back and started edit-warring on the exact same content. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss the dispute not the editor. Opening comments are for the editor listed and not a debate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for that relevant bit of misleading information, as it has been 3 days since my block.Unnamed101 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC) It has been three days since your block was placed. It lasted for 24 hours, so it's only been off for two days. The very first edit you made when you came back today was to revert again, the exact thing that got you blocked. —Torchiest talkedits 16:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC) After reading WP:RSOPINION, which I would argue clearly lays the grounds for my edits, as you may have noted in the conflict resolution request.Unnamed101 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC) We don't need to source them for their own opinions, as we already have a clear WP:RS telling us what those opinions are. —Torchiest talkedits 16:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Does this edit entirely encapsulate the material in issue here? If so, then it seems to me that if the assertion into which this material is being edited, specifically:

Gaming Blend countered negative journalism aimed at the game's fanbase. It claims that the industry at large is far too defensive of production companies' actions to the point of accepting backward steps in game availability. It dismisses the existence of "entitlement" saying that while a large portion of 0/10 reviews do not reflect the quality of the game, they nonetheless reflect the dissatisfaction with the product.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Diablo-3-Launch-Fiasco-Proves-Video-Game-Journalism-Fails-42624.html | title=Diablo 3's Launch Fiasco Proves Video Game Journalism Fails | author=William Usher | work=Cinema Blend | date=May 17, 2012 | accessdate=May 18, 2012}}</ref>

is acceptable, then the mere reference to Amazon and Metacritic should be acceptable since they are both specifically mentioned in the referenced article, though I might suggest reworking the reference to read:

... 0/10 reviews (on sites such as Amazon and Metacritic) do not reflect ...

The author of that article actually says, somewhat ungramatically:

People had seen the review scores for Diablo III on Metacritic, the disappointment on Amazon, the rage on the forums, the outcries on Reddit, the anger on N4G and everywhere else in between and instantly ran wild with "Oh noes, the internet exploded in rage again", completely ignoring that the issue people are complaining about are ...

so I suppose that a case could be made for saying:

... 0/10 reviews (on sites such as Amazon, Metacritic, Reddit, N4G, and discussion forums) do not reflect ...

If the information from the article is acceptable (and I express no opinion, pro or con, about that issue), then what it says is what it says. What then, I suspect, most people object to are the footnotes linking to those sites. Could this be a compromise, then: to list some or all of the sites, as I've suggested above in a couple of different ways, but to omit the footnotes linking to those sites? After all, the author of that article did not link or provide URL's to them, so to include links to them in footnotes is actually to include more than what the author actually said and is thus a form of prohibited original research. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The main issue is the use of unreliable sources, not necessarily providing examples of sites where negative feedback might be posted. However, providing an exhaustive list of places where feedback is posted seems unnecessary. The reviews are posted on various sites on the internet, and even the Gamingblend reference is open ended on that. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the opposition to the edit in question has so far been based upon reliability, but removing the footnotes cures that objection since the sites are actually mentioned in the Usher article. I also agree that the Usher article was not proposing a comprehensive list: that's the reason I qualified the list with "sites such as". While I don't necessarily think that it's useful to mention all of the sites mentioned in the Usher article, I can't see much harm in mentioning them and listing at least a couple of them helps to clarify what Usher is talking about. Such a clarification may not be needed for gamers reading the article, but Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia which should be written so that it's clear to everyone, not just enthusiasts. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think "(such as Amazon or Metacritic)" would make more sense. 0/10 reviews doesn't really describe what is happening on Reddit or discussion forums. --SubSeven (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would oppose mentioning the sites by name, or at least not very strongly. The external sites used as references is the heart of the disagreement. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I find that an acceptable compromise, and only amazon and metacritic need be listed since any of the other sites don't actually have a 'review' format, we must've had a rift somewhere that indicated I only wanted to cite those with links, I am new to wikipedia editing and when referencing something I thought it always best to cite its location, if we can agree on adding them in simply by name I will fully agree to ending this matter.Unnamed101 (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Closing notice: Let me note that I don't strongly favor either of the versions I suggested above, but was just floating them out as alternatives. If everyone is fine with "(such as Amazon or Metacritic)", as would appear to be the case, you ought to go with that, but that can be worked out on the article talk page. I (or another volunteer) will close this thread as "resolved," unless someone has something more to say within the next 24 hours. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Phillip morris international (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jiwonjung84 (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

I've removed few facts on the Philip Morris International page that were inaccurate which I verified with few other sources. However, this unidentified user with IP address 114.79.3.117 keep reversing my edits. What can I do to discuss with this person rather than keep reversing each other's work?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is my first attemp to resolve this issue with Wikipedia.

How do you think we can help?

Please have the user with 114.79.3.117 IP address provide a reliable source for the edit.

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Italian music history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Peter den store (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• null (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

Hi,1. In the article Italian Music History we are told that Italy was started 1561, should be 1861. 2. Swedish wikipedia writes Peter the great was 200 cm, should be 2004 or 2003

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Noticed now

How do you think we can help?

Correct the false information

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. The other user states that they want to come to a consensus with me, but at the same time they refuse to offer any details on which of my edits they are willing to let stand. I have specifically told the other user what resolution I think would be appropriate, but they ignore my offer.

Location of dispute

• Galloway Township, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Djbutala93 (talk · contribs)
• Alansohn (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Me and another editor are having a dispute about where information belongs in the article and what information is to be included and not to be included. We have undone each others edits for the past few months as a result of our disagreement. The areas in dispute are in the introduction of the article and in the info box on the right side. The issues specifically deal with:

1. Deputy Mayor: The other user specifically states that there is no need for a deputy mayor position to be included as "they have no governmental function whatsoever" which is grossly untrue in the case of Galloway Township. I have repeatedly stated this to them but they refuse to accept that.

2. Population Trends: The user's insistence that the introduction needs to include great population trends. I have repeatedly told the other user that it doesn't belong in the introduction as an introduction is to be brief and broad in any topic. Articles on major cities such as New York City and Chicago do not include this information as it is in the demographics section. My suggestion is to only include it in the demographics section.

3. Information on the Township Manager: Was added so it could be quickly referenced by readers of the article. The user keeps deleting it for no justified reason. It is extremely relevant to most people who read the article.

4. Largest Municipality: The reason why I put (and therefore township) is due to consistent conflicts in the local area that neighboring Hamilton Township is larger. The other user feels that there is no conflict as it is stated (through his edits) in that article as well. This belongs in the introduction as it will further reinforce the correct fact.

The other user believes and greatly insists that the article has to follow a certain format that numerous other articles (New Jersey's 566 Municipalities) edited mostly by them on Wikipedia do. I believe that the article doesn't have to follow that format as it is permitted to be unique in itself. This article is entitled to not have to follow their insisted format or pattern (be part of an article monopoly run by them). However, they feel that it has to. That is a great source of conflict, whether or not this article has to follow the same format as all of the other articles that they have edited.

I have offered to let some of the other user's edits stand while they let some of mine stand. I have done this via communicating with them on their talk page. The other user has not specifically stated what edits of mine they are willing to let stand.

How do you think we can help?

By getting the other editor to state what edits of mine they are willing to let stand. Then get them to agree to permit the article to be unique in itself.

Here is my summary of the issues under discussion:

1) Deputy Mayor - Deputy Mayors are not listed in infoboxes for any of the other 565 municipalities in New Jersey, primarily because they have no governemntal function whatsoever unless the mayor resigns or is removed from office; Until that happens, the deputy mayor is not needed in the infobox and is listed elsewhere in the article.

2) Population trends - Population trends are listed in almost all 566 articles, and the rapid growth of a community like Galloway Township is relevant in the lead, even if it is listed elsewhere just like all content in the article, and should be reinserted here.

3) Month and year that manager took office. It's not listed for any other municipal manager statewide, nor is it relevant. All that's of importance is *who* the manager is. If there is any relevance to when he was hired, it probably belongs in the text of the article, if at all.

4) Largest municipality (and township) - Galloway Township is the largest municipality in New Jersey. It is the largest township, and is also the largest municipality in the county, and the largest that starts with the letter "G" and the largest with three syllables. It's the largest in the whole entire state, so it's the largest no matter how you slice it. My preferred wording is "Galloway Township is the largest municipality in New Jersey", while the suggested alternative is "Galloway Township is the largest municipality (and therefore township) in the State of New Jersey". The Galloway Township article makes it clear that Galloway is the largest in the state and a corresponding statement is in the article for Hamilton Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey, "At 111.127 square miles (287.82 km²), Hamilton Township has the largest land area of any municipality in New Jersey.^[1] However, with a total area of 113.066 square miles (292.84 km²) it is the second-largest municipality in New Jersey in terms of total area, more than 2.1 square miles (5.4 km²) smaller than neighboring Galloway Township, which has a total area of 115.213 square miles (298.40 km²).". The wording that "Galloway Township is the largest municipality (and therefore township) in the State of New Jersey" is not only redundant, but extremely awkwardly worded and entirely unnecessary.

5) Article ownership - As I explained, neither of us owns this article. In this talk page comment, User:Djbutala93 states that "I have been a lifelong resident of this township, therefore I believe I know what I am doing to the article. Please stop fiddling with my edits."

6) Place for resolution - I will be more than happy to accept any resolution, but a far better place would be at WT:NJ, which is where I had suggested. I'm not sure that there are any editors here who understand government and geography of the Garden State, but any resolution is better than none. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Sigmund Freud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Esterson (talk · contribs)
• Almanacer (talk · contribs)
• Polisher of Cobwebs (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a long-running dispute on the Freud talk page regarding postings on the Science section of the Freud page. [10] It has reached an impasse.

It is about the appropriateness (in terms of certain specific of the content, but above all on the proportionality of the amount of space devoted to a relatively minor contributor to Freud scholarship) of one editor's postings on the Freud page.

If anyone can come in on this I would be grateful. If you do venture forth, after seeing the initial postings to get the flavour of the topic, the endless point/counterpoint that follows should be skipped, down to the most recent postings at the end.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Apart from trying to be reasonable, and making a major concession to the point of view expressed by the editor with whose views I differ, I have taken no steps for dispute resolution

How do you think we can help?

By having an outsider check out what is going on and come in with comments.

Its important to understand that this dispute takes place in the context of the POV notice added recently to the front page of the Freud article. The editor who did this, Hypoplectrus, has expressed specific concerns with the content and lack of balance in the Science section (see Talk Page), concerns which I share and to which I have responded in editing the page by adding the disputed content. It also needs noting that Esterton, who has been regularly active as an editor in this section, is also an author whose works are cited and referenced this section in criticism of advocates of Freud's work. His low opinion/POV on of Donald Levy and his repeated removal of an important summary of Levy's defence of Freud's scientific credibility by an author whose views are in direct opposition to his own can therefore be reasonably questioned in terms of a NPOV.

Hypoplectrus has reached the same conclusion as myself on the talk page: "Esterton and Polisher of Cobwebs should stop preventing other editors from adding sourced material. That is most certainly part of the reason that the article does not have a neutral POV." I would add that I amended my summary of Levy twice in response to comments by Esterton and explained to him why I was restoring the text he deleted (and continues so to do). It seems to me absurd to question the appropriateness or disproportionality (less than 200 words) of a summary of a defence of Freud's scientific credibility in the Science section of the Freud article. Almanacer (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to tally up the pro and anti-Freud citations in the Science section: 15 Anti vs 7 Pro (3 neutral). Esterton/PoC are proposing to remove the most extensively argued Pro contribution. This was how the dispute started. No proposals to remove any Anti content is current. Hence the ongoing concerns re. balance (WP:STRUCTURE) and NPOV.Almanacer (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a rather complicated debate, that has been ongoing for some time at the Freud article. It's hardly possible to discuss all the details here, but the main issue at present is that Almanacer wants the article to cover the views of Donald Levy, one of many writers who has expressed views on the scientific merits of psychoanalysis, in more detail than either Esterson or I considers appropriate. Almanacer has continued to add this material despite objections, and the lack of consensus for it at the talk page, most recently here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the request below that any further discussion by the editors involved should be on the Freud Talk page. (Anyway, there is no way I could respond adequately to Almanacer's tendentious account above in 2000 characters.)

I will however point out a couple of errors of fact by Almanacer. The first is his assertion that the citation to my publication in the Science section relates to criticism of advocates of Freud's work. This is erroneous. The criticism is of Grunbaum, who is a celebrated critic of Freud. Alamanacer's second error is his stating that I have a low opinion of Donald Levy. In fact I have mixed feelings about the book cited by Almanacer (Freud Among the Philosophers). Taken as a whole, I essentially agree with Levy's chapter spelling out his criticisms of Grunbaum. (Another error is Almanacer's writing of my cited "works", in the plural. There is only one citation.) I will also note that my proposed paragraph, which is in full accord with Almanacer's concern for the citing of authors favourable to Freud (I cited four such authors, giving their views), included a sentence stating a relevant viewpoint by Levy, thereby adding to the citation to Levy already in an earlier paragraph.

I request that any editor who comes in on this dispute should go to the Science section on the Freud Talk page [11], skip down to the very end of that section, and read my two objections to Almanacer's disproportionate space given to Levy (and my criticisms of Almanacer for his repeated postings on the Freud page without consultation despite there being an ongoing dispute). Esterson (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

On Almanacer's reporting (above) of the unbalanced references in the Science section: Editors have had many years to provide citations to authors who have argued for the scientific credentials of Freud/psychoanalysis. My impression is that many psychoanalysts do not see psychoanalysis as a science, or at least, do not regard the issue of its scientific credentials as of major importance. Some eminent supporters of Freud/psychoanalysis have argued that it is wrong to regard psychoanalysis as a science. One such is Louis Breger, professor of psychoanalytic studies at CalTech and founding President of the Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis, who has produced a lengthy paper entitled "Psychoanalysis is not science."

Notable academics such as Habermas and Ricoeur have argued that psychoanalysis should be regarded as within the field of hermeneutics, i.e., it is an explanatory discourse, not a scientific discipline. The psychoanalytic authors George Klein, Roy Schafer, and Donald Spence have taken an essentially similar approach, arguing that psychoanalysis seeks not "historical truth" but "narrative truth", and they urge the abandonment of claims that psychoanalysis offers objective explanations of human behaviour.

This being the case, I suggest that the imbalance Almanacer has documented for the Science section reflects not bias, but something of the imbalance one might expect, given that anti-Freud authors place a great emphasis on the importance of scientific credentials, while this is far less the case for pro-Freud authors, many of whom either do not believe psychoanalysis is, in essence, a scientific discipline (and is none the worst for that) or do not regard the issue as of any great importance. Esterson (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Please reduce your comment to less than 2000 characters. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed your comment. I thought my length was alright as it contains less than 2000 actual characters (excluding the spaces). My posting has now been reduced.Esterson (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant the 2nd comment you made. The first one was ok. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 12:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for submitting a request. I'm a third party editor that volunteers on the noticeboard. The dispute resolution noticeboard is an informal process, and volunteers do not have any powers or authority distinct from that of the involved editors. Volunteers are just editors that have not previously been involved in a dispute.--SGCM (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is rather complex, but I'll try my best. WP:BALANCE is not an exact science, and difficult to achieve for controversial subjects like the scientific character, or lack thereof, of psychoanalysis, but must adhere to WP:DUE weight so as to be neutral. The concern raised by Polisher of Cobwebs and Esterson is that one writer, Donald Levy, a defender of scientific credentials of Freud, has been given WP:UNDUE weight. Almanacer's argument is that the current section lacks balance, and favours Freud's critics. If that assessment is inaccurate, feel free to correct me. Would using a reliable source other than Levy, but with a similar point of view, work as a compromise?--SGCM (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not aim for balance. Neutrality isn't the same as balance. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The determination of WP:BALANCE must take into account WP:DUE weight. I'm reiterating the arguments of the opening statements, not agreeing with them. In determining the neutrality of a Wikipedia article, weight is factored in. Neutrality does not mean equal representation or equal validity of all viewpoints, only due representation of the significant and scholarly ones. In that sense, I agree.--SGCM (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The larger problem here is that the legacy section of the Freud article is over-written. Put simply, it contain too much material, and consequently is confusing to readers. If you look at the two paragraphs starting with the mention of Adolf Grünbaum, you'll see what I mean. The first of those paragraphs mentions Grünbaum's views on Freud and Popper, then mentions the views that a series of other people have expressed on Grünbaum (Levy is one of them, and has been added relatively recently). Other people whose views are mentioned are Ernest Gellner, Frank Cioffi, and Allen Esterson, who is one of the participants in this dispute (User:Esterson). Ironically, this is far more detailed information than could be found in the article specifically devoted to Grünbaum. But the second paragraph, which is as long as it is primarily because of Almanacer's efforts and secondarily because of Esterson's, makes things still worse. It goes into a quite detailed discussion of the views of Levy, who has been a comparatively minor participant in philosophical arguments over the validity of psychoanalysis. This is undesirable in itself. It is still more undesirable that the article first briefly mentions Levy in one paragraph, then interrupts the discussion of Levy by mentioning Gellner, Cioffi, and Esterson, and then returns again to Levy in more detail. It doesn't read in a coherent or logical way. I don't doubt that Almanacer is acting in good faith in adding that material. But the result makes the science section of the article unmanageable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

To try to answer your question more specifically: I can only say that I am unsure what Almanacer would or would not accept as a compromise. Efforts at compromise have already been made, and Almanacer has rejected them, with unfortunate consequences for the article. Take a look at his edit to the Freud article here, which among other things added the following: "he [Levy] rejects as confused and incoherent Cioffi’s attempt to portray Freud’s interpretive method as “spinning webs of pseudo-meaning” and as on a par with new-age Pyramidology". That there is really a need to mention Pyramidology in the Freud article I very much doubt. It looks like the clearest case of undue material one could hope to find, actually. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

SGCM: Thank you for your input. You write: "Would using a reliable source other than Levy, but with a similar point of view, work as a compromise?"

No one is suggesting omitting Levy as a source. He is already cited in a previous paragraph, and in my proposed "compromise" paragraph I included three lines devoted to Levy's views, followed by sentences containing references to the views of three other pro-Freud authors relevant to the "science" issue.

I agree with PoC when he writes "The larger problem here is that the legacy section of the Freud article is over-written. Put simply, it contain too much material, and consequently is confusing to readers." How one deals with this, given the differing views on what is important, is another matter! I will however make one point in response to PoC's writing that the paragraph following that on Grunbaum "is as long as it is primarily because of Almanacer's efforts and secondarily because of Esterson's". The sentences of mine that Almanacer added on to his lengthy exposition of Levy's views were written in response to Almanacer's concerns, and I think the views of the three pro-Freud authors I succinctly referenced (plus an equally succinct citing of Levy) should remain in the section regardless of whatever tidying up process take place. Esterson (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As previously stated on the Talk Page the quote from Levy which Esterton includes in his replacement "compromise" text doesn’t mention the scientific credibility issue, making the passage of less relevance than the text I provided which explicitly links the concepts of tranference/resistance to casework and thus to the evidential stauts of Freudian theory; hence my choice of the Levy quote including the reference to “much evidence in support” of Freudian theory. The other part of the quote that “there are no good arguments” advanced against psychoanalysis’s scientific credentials is, I suggest, an assertion of roughly the same weight, and therefore provides appropriate balance to, the reference in the article to Webster’s view that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. A NPOV surely requires both standpoints to be represented in an article whose neutrality is already under dispute.

As to the UNDUE WEIGHT objection, Esterton and PoC evidently have particular POVs on how the content of the science section reflects the balance of scholarly opinion, but that’s all they are, POVs. If they seriouisly think a 2:1 ratio anti/pro Freud is unbalanced, rather than remove pro-Freud content as they propose, let them add further content on the arguments of Webster/Cioffi/Crews et al. appropriate to the defecit they claim exists.

I agree the article needs serious work but I would point out in response to a misrepresentation by PoC that the incoherence of the Grunbaum passage results in part from PoC, not me, putting the Levy quote there, which he took from the main paragraph I contributed. His claim that I am unwilling to compromise is a further misrepresentation. The reference in the Levy text is to theories "on a par with Pyramidology", not Pyramidology itself, a distinction which appears to have escaped PoC. Almanacer (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer uses the device of specifying the quotation I gave as purportedly demonstrating my failure to mention the scientific credibility issue. This neatly obscures the fact that in my proposed paragraph I specifically mentioned the context of "Freud’s scientific credibility", and the quotation I gave in this context included Levy's alluding to the central importance of resistance and transference phenomena – concepts that Almancer himself highlighted in his sentences paraphrasing Levy's views.

In regard to the 2:1 ratio disparity reported by Almanacer, I addressed that issue above in regard to the Science section.

In support of his attempt to redress the balance he writes "rather than remove pro-Freud content as they [Esterson and PoC] propose, …"

This sounds reasonable – until one knows what actually has happened. In response to Almanacer's five sentence paragraph disproportionately laying out Levy's views, I proposed a replacement paragraph including a three-line sentence paraphrasing Levy's support for the scientific credentials of Freud's interpretative procedures. This was followed by sentences mentioning the views of three other authors who have written in support of the scientific status of Freud's theories. That Almanacer sums up this situation as indicating my and PoC's wish "to remove pro-Freud content" speaks for itself.

On Almanacer's suggestion for the adding of "further content" (for context, see above):

Almanacer's inclusion of sentences explicitly critical of Cioffi's views on the plausibility of Freud's interpretative procedures despite the fact that the essay being criticised has not been cited on the Freud page sets a precedent for any editor to paraphrase one author's critique of another author's writings on Freud, thereby opening the way for extending the Freud page almost ad infinitum. Almanacer's latest suggestion above is one which would also extend the already extensive Science section even further. Esterson (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• A clarification: if people believe that wikipedia requires some sort of balance on a view they are mistaken. WP:BALANCE refers to views that are equally prevalent in the most reliable sources. If a particular viewpoint is most prevalent it gets most if not all the WP:WEIGHT in the article. If an idea is a WP:FRINGE theory or is widely believe to be pseudoscience by the scientific community then it can and should be categorized and described as such in the article. (oddly enough WP:FRINGE has not been mentioned in the entire discussion). As a small advertisement of FTN, the related noticeboard, if you think a fringe element has undue placement then try WP:FTN IRWolfie- (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie: Thanks for your clarifications. In this case there is no question of fringe views, but I think what you have written is still pertinent for the Science section of the Freud page. I have written above why I think that there are many more "anti-Freud" citations in the Science section than "pro-Freud" – it is a crucial issue for critics of Freud, but far less so for Freud supporters, among whom are several eminent academics who argue that psychoanalysis is not a scientific discipline. In my "compromise" paragraph, in response to concerns expressed by Almanacer I increased the number of references to Freud supporters by three, plus the author that Almanacer cites. Esterson (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of "outsiders" coming in on this dispute: There is no need to plough through the Science section of the Freud Talk page, nor indeed the point/counterpoint above. It is nothing more than a choice between these [12] two highlighted versions. (Almanacer's current posting on the Freud page has tacked on my three sentences citing pro-Freud authors in addition to Levy to his disproportionate five sentence paraphrasing of Levy.) Esterson (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Both versions are based on primary sources of the opinions. Get modern independent secondary sources to provide more perspective. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Having more "anti-Freud" citations in the Science section than "pro-Freud" is fine. Since Freudian psychoanalysis etc is out of the mainstream I expect the section to reflect that. As I said, we don't aim for balancing different viewpoints, but for describing them neutrally with due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie. You're right that WP:BALANCE must factor in WP:DUE weight. Wikipedia encourages balance for prominent views, but with due weight. Articles on Wikipedia should not give equal weight to all views, thus numerically matching the pro and anti Freud sources as Almanacer has suggested is not considered neutral. I concur that fringe views should be avoided, but fringe claims have yet to be brought up. @Esterson. Your compromise seems promising. I agree that the article should avoid giving too much weight to Levy's views. The entire article may need trimming, as Cobwebs pointed out. This is a biography after all, and not an article on psychoanalysis.--SGCM (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie. You wrote: "Both versions are based on primary sources of the opinions. Get modern independent secondary sources to provide more perspective."

Sorry, I don't understand that. Citations throughout the Freud page are to authors who have published their views on Freud (or Freudian psychoanalysis) on topics relevant to each section. These citations are no different in this respect to any others on the Freud page. Esterson (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie. The article is, or should be, a biography of Sigmund Freud. Primary sources are sources that are close to an event, like those written by people who are directly involved. A letter written by Freud, or an essay written by a friend or relative of Freud's would be a primary sources. Opinions are not always primary sources, and opinions written long after Freud are certainly not. The sources might be undue, and I've yet to take a stance on it, but articles written in 1998 and 1996 are not primary.--SGCM (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I will elaborate by example; the article is sourcing the opinions of Levy to Levy himself, if you want to show this has due weight, use independent secondary sources which are not Levy. A book by Levy is a primary source for the opinions of Levy. What is a primary source is not always in consideration to what the topic is but the specific text being added. See Primary_source#Classifying sources: "A book review, when it contains the opinion of the reviewer about the book rather than a summary of the book, becomes a primary source". IRWolfie- (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The subject is Freud, not Levy. If this was an article on Levy, Levy would be a primary source. However wrongheaded Levy is, and I do think his coverage is undue, as WP:SECONDARY states:

"Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review."

Opinions are not always primary sources. Secondary sources can make analytic claims. If an opinion is directly linked to a subject, like a critic reviewing a book, then it's a primary source. But in this case, it's not, the subject and the person writing about the subject, unlike a critic and a recently reviewed book, are from two different time periods. An example: a critic from the Victorian era reviewing a Charles Dickens novel is a primary source. An author living in the 21st century writing an analysis of the same Charles Dickens novel is not. I agree that Levy is being given too much weight, but that's a WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV problem.--SGCM (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

About "See Primary_source#Classifying sources." Wikipedia articles are not always reliable or trustworthy, and should generally not be cited in a discussion. The first source cited in the Primary sources article writes that primary sources include "a critical review of a book (usually a recently published book)." The second source cited links to the wrong page, although it does state that "Opinion reviews are typically written soon after the publication date of the book." The citation should link to this page, which echoes what I've said: primary sources are "either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied." The Wikipedia article on Primary sources mentions neither of these caveats, despite it being in the citations.--SGCM (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that doesn't add up. If you are attributing comments to an individual, what is the primary source for his opinions? His own work where he says the words are of course the primary source for them. They are the primary source because they are the original sources for the opinion, there is no item which is more primary for the opinions. We aren't using these sources for statement in the wikipedia tone, then they would be secondary, we are using them for the opinions of individuals. What would be a secondary source? Some other party noting and critiquing these opinions. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Being an opinion does not necessarily make a source primary. Opinions can be primary or secondary depending on how close the material is to the event. Secondary sources are second-hand accounts. When an opinion quoted is personally close to the subject of the article, in this case Freud, then it's a primary source. An essay by a friend or colleague of Freud is a primary source. If it's not directly linked with the subject, and the source and subject are separated by half a century like in this case, then it's a secondary source. The source cited in the Wikipedia article on Primary sources states that: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied."--SGCM (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I can help in this conflict. E.g. Grünbaum is the most important critican of psychoanalysis. And I think his underrepresented in the article. If give this critic more attantion it's also possible to mention futher discussion about his thoughts. But now it seems like Grünbaum is only one of other critic. That don't live up to his reputation. --WSC ^® 11:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WSC: The dispute is about a specific paragraph posted by Almanacer in the Science section of the Freud page. Please don't let us get into discussing Grunbaum here. Esterson (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I understand the problem now. But maybe it's possible and helpfull, to unterstand the importance for the issu of Levi's criticism? The scholar is not only a surchengine it's also a citatiation-counter. Levi was cited 25 Times. But Grünbaums main work was cited about 1100 times. The english edition. I think the book was translated in several languages. Maybe you have a basis to discuss the necessity of the mention of Levis criticism? A lot of people citicize Freud, but you can't mention them all. It's necessary to come to a decision by using a objectiv instrument? --WSC ^® 14:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I have, on the Freud Talk page, pointed out that Levy is a minor contributor to Freud studies (one book on the topic of philosophers' views on Freud, and one article devoted to a single specialised topic in Grunbaum 1984), and does not warrant five sentences paraphrasing his views. But Almanacer is impervious to any arguments and intransigent in insisting that the passage on Levy that he posted on the Freud page should be retained. He justified the five sentences on the basis of there being few pro-Freud authors cited in the Science section, so I proposed a paragraph with one sentence giving Levy's views, followed by references to the views of three other pro-Freud authors, but Almanacer still insists on his five sentences being retained. Esterson (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm an pro-Freud author too. But I think the debatte of Grünbaum is really interesting and positiv for psychoanalysis. Grünbaum is an excellent adept of psychoanalysis, not as Popper was. He showed a lot of the problems of the theorys of psychoanalysis but doesn't revied the new developments. I think the Grünbaum debatte should be discussed extensive in the article. If Levy should be mentioned is secundary. I think there are much better contributions to this debatte. --WSC ^® 16:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I welcome recent contributions and SGCM’s attempts to mediate the dispute but I have to correct his/her statement that I am advocating “numerically matching the pro and anti Freud sources”. This has never been and is not the case. What I am advocating is restoring a better, not an equal, balance of opinion. Sorry if I did not make this clear.

Increasing the pro Freud content by one paragraph (part of which was repositioned by PoC), still leaves a substantial anti-Freud majority content with 18 anti Freud voice vs 4-6 pros (depending on how you read some who have positive and negative remarks). Large claims like pseudoscience on the anti side merit countervailing pro Freud accounts and Levy provides the only one of any length. I introduced Levy with WP:STRUCTURE and WP:NPOV in mind after the POV was flagged up. I fail to see in this context how WP:UNDUE applies to the Levy content.

Esterton claims to have provided a “compromise” text “paraphrasing Levy's support for the scientific credentials of Freud's interpretative procedures” As is evident it is not paraphrase of anything. It’s a statement that Levy makes a case for Freud’s scientific credentials followed by a quotation. I intend to restore part of my summary of Levy’s argument that PoC has recently reverted but in a reworded form. Please note that the Levy content is/was ALREADY a compromise between my original version the more recent ones, made in response to Esterton’s comments.

I agree with Slim Virgin there are too many opinions/sound bites/quotes in the article. I have removed the Levy quote from my paragraph in response. Unfortunately Esterton is a serial purveyor of snippet references which even in the pro-Freud instances are undesirable and are a major obstacle to improving the article. At the outset of this dispute Hypoplectrus, observing that the article was largely “a log of criticisms of Freud" - hence his flagging the POV - made the sensible suggestion that a separate section on Freud Critics should be established. I hope this will be considered. And is not a moratorium on reverting appropriate during this dispute process? Almanacer (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer's comments here illustrate why the dispute has gone on for so long. He fails to address rebuttals of his assertions and provides tendentious accounts. I have explained above why one would expect to find a strong bias towards anti-Freud authors in the Science section. My compromise involved the citing of three more pro-Freud authors in response to Almanacer's concerns about imbalance, something he fails to mention. He quibbles about my using the word "paraphrase", when all that matters is that my three line sentence (in Almanacer's own words) reported Levy's making a case for Freud’s scientific credentials followed by a quotation – which is as much as any of the much more significant contributors to Freud studies have in the Science section. He writes that his current Levy content is already a compromise between his original version, made in response to my comments. But these were nothing more than tweakings, and as I repeatedly pointed out, failed to address the two central arguments I made. One is that, given I had responded to his concerns by supplying references to the views of three more pro-Freud authors, there was no justification for his retaining five sentences devoted to the views of a minor contributor to Freud studies. He says I am a "serial purveyor of snippet references", when prior to this dispute I provided only three short quotations in two sentences. In any case, is he suggesting I should have provided lengthy quotations? Finally, he asks "Is not a moratorium on reverting appropriate during this dispute process?" This from someone who posted his original five sentence paragraph, plus later minor amendments, without any consultation despite the fact that the topic was under dispute on the Talk page, and despite repeated requests from PoC not to do so. Esterson (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

@Almanacer. The number of Freud critics in the science section is to be expected. Psychoanalysis has been losing popularity among psychologists and research scientists, although it still retains a strong following within the humanities. Neutrality for the Science section requires that it represents, with due weight, the views of the scientific community. If Levy's views are represented, it should be kept short, snippet or not. @Esterson. As previously brought up, I think there's a greater problem here. Too much of the Sigmund Freud article is devoted to Freudian psychology. As a biography, the article should focus on the man and his personal beliefs. Most of both the pro and anti-Freud content should be moved to psychoanalysis, where it belongs. Overall trimming could be a solution.--SGCM (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

@SGCM: In general terms, I'm inclined to agree with you about the content of the Freud page. (There is a discussion about overhauling content currently on the Freud Talk page, which I've suggested should go into a new Talk page section. Your comments would be appropriate there.) However I don't think that a revised Freud page should focus just on his personal beliefs (whatever that entails). A major feature has to be his theories and purported discoveries. Nevertheless, as always with Freud, this would not be straightforward, as there is huge controversy about the accuracy of his reporting of his clinical findings. But I don't want this issue to divert attention from the subject under dispute here, so I hope you will contribute your views to the Freud Talk page.Esterson (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I concur, the article should focus on his career too. Trimming might resolve the dispute over Levy. The less the article is about psychoanalysis in general, the less the Levy quote will matter. The overhaul might work, I'm optimistic about it.--SGCM (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately such an overhaul would (assuming someone undertakes this massive task) probably take some months, given the deep disagreements that are likely to arise about which material merits inclusion.Esterson (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to the dispute: Almanacer has reverted PoC's reinstating of my paragraph on the Freud page, but this time has made a genuine concession by reducing the five Levy sentences to two. That means that we have a choice between these two paragraphs: [13]

The reason for arguing mine is preferable is twofold. Given that I provided references to three other pro-Freud authors in response to Almanacer's concerns (added to the Levy sentences in his paragraph), I see no reason why a minor contributor to Freud studies should warrant two sentences when there is no other instance of an author's views on Freud being given more than one sentence. (The several sentences given to Fisher and Greenberg do not summarise their views on Freud, but outline their reported results of experimental studies.) More importantly, I object to his alluding specifically to Levy's criticisms of a Cioffi book chapter (1970) that is not cited on the Freud page. To allow the referencing of one author's views of another author's publication that has not been previously cited opens the way for editors to reference any author's criticisms of another author's views on Freud, a precedent that could extend an already overfull Freud page almost ad infinitum. For the same reason I would just as strongly object if an editor referenced Cioffi's critical essay on Wollheim's Freud in relation to the scientific credentials of Freudian theories. Esterson (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

@SGCM I agree with your overall assessment of the deficiencies of the article. I also agree that Freudian theories have declined in influence in psychology. This still leaves, however, as you point out, the humanities where if anything the trend is in the other direction. Are you taking into account the social sciences like sociology and anthropology where many are undertaking what they would regard as scientific research under the influence of Freudian theory?

As you will note I have reduced the Levy content to two sentences and taken on board SlimVirgins’ point regarding paraphrasing and summaries being preferable to direct quotation.

With regard to the alternative texts, what is absent in Esterton’s contribution is any reference to Levy’s central point that (in his view) it is clinical casework material that provides evidence by which Freud’s theories can be tested. That is clear from my summary but nowhere to found in his contribution. “Making sense of psychoanalytic interpretation,” which is what the quotation from Levy he provides is about, is not the same as making the case for the evidential status of Freud’s theories. Moreover the effect of Esterton’s contribution would be, oddly enough in the context his previous complaints, to give a quotation from Levy that is longer than any other in the entire Science section.

In his complaint about two sentences rather than one on Levy Esterton, not for the first time, is missing the point. It’s not about Levy’s allegedly “minor” status in the academic pecking order, it’s about the standpoint he represents in the debate and the need to have a page that “fairly represents all significant viewpoints”, to quote the guidelines, where the overwhelming majority of the text is Freud criticism

In objecting to the inclusion of Levy’s criticism of Popper and Cioffi, Esterton has invented a protocol he wants to enforce on other editors which has no basis in any WP guidelines viz the prohibition of “the referencing of one author's views of another author's publication that has not been previously cited”. I believe this would unnecessarily and undesirably exclude instances of any author who presented a case by critical exposition of another author. This is the case with Levy who chooses to make his case by “exposing various errors in interpreting Freud ” and whose comment on Cioffi is applicable beyond the content of the 1970 paper. WP guidelines applied on a case-by-case basis is what matters in the management of inappropriate content and we don’t need Esterton’s proposed supplement to them (he could try adding it in the appropriate forum if he wishes). I’d be perfectly happy to have a sentence or two on Cioffi’s view of Wollheim provided it was relevant to the science debate. Almanacer (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

First, I am entirely happy to allow my "Levy" sentence to be replaced by Almanacer's first sentence, so that gets that out of the way. Almanacer says his addition of two Levy sentences is about the need for fair representation of all significant viewpoints. But it was I who added three other pro-Freud viewpoints on the scientific credentials of Freudian theories. And does Almanacer really think that the numerous briefer references to other authors' views in the Science section are sufficient to fairly represent their viewpoints'? Why should Levy be an exception to the limitations inherent for a topic on which so much has been written? On the explicit mentioning of Cioffi (whose article being criticised he has not even cited, and indeed has not read), Almanacer has made clear he favours an open house policy of unlimited citing of one author's criticisms of another author's views on Freud in the appropriate context. In that case, I can add another paragraph starting with a referencing of Erwin's article rebutting Levy's case against Grunbaum. Then, as the Cioffi 1970 essay is criticised, it would be legitimate for me to reference, contra Levy, Sulloway's favourable view of Cioffi's "spurious allusions" critique that Almanacer mentions, together with similar favourable views from Erwin and Webster of precisely this same critique by Cioffi. In other words we can have one editor vying with another to post their favoured author's views on another author's views on Freud. That way lies the potential for almost unlimited extension of the Freud page.

Incidentally, I have no objection to the referencing of Levy's criticism of Popper, though I suggest the right place for this should be in the Grunbaum/Popper paragraph, along with the sentence referencing Levy's criticism of Grunbaum. In summary, what I am accepting, plus proposing myself, is not actually a "compromise", it is going virtually all the way to accede to Almanacer's concerns. Esterson (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the solution to this problem is to cut back the legacy section. Substantial parts of its contents would be better for other articles, such as Karl Popper and Adolf Grünbaum. I have made suggestions along these lines on the talk page of the Freud article. (Almanacer suggested above that I am partly responsible for the incoherence of the paragraph in the legacy section discussing Grünbaum. That may well be; I've made many edits to the article, and I don't recall perfectly whether it was me who arranged things that way or not. What matters is not who arranged things that way, but how the material should be changed). My only other comment for now is to agree with those who have pointed out that WP:NPOV doesn't demand that exactly equal space must be given to favorable and to critical views of Freud and psychoanalysis (and to remark that while other editors may care passionately whether the article portrays Freud and psychoanalysis in a primarily positive or a primarily negative light, I don't care about that at all on a personal level). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

@Esterson. That might work. Levy, if he is to be mentioned at all, should remain a single sentence, so as not to be UNDUE, but that sentence can be directed at Popper.

@Coberwebs. I agree, an overhaul is needed, and the discussion for one is currently ongoing on the article talk page. Perhaps the subsections of the Legacy section should be merged into one when shortened? Hopefully, that will resolve the dispute, but if not, it must be repeated that neutrality is due weight, not equal weight. Freud has largely been rejected by the scientific community, although he remains influential in the humanities. The article needs to convey that.--SGCM (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that merging the subsections of the legacy section into one would be feasible. SGCM, if you could comment on my proposals on the Freud talk page, that would help. I've tried to keep my comments here very short and to the point, since I've seen how dispute resolution procedures can drag on into interminable discussion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have moved Levy's criticism of Popper to the Popper/Grunbaum paragraph where it is more appropriately placed, together with the Levy criticism of Grunbaum that Almanacer previously posted there. Levy's criticism of Popper is thus retained. I have also deleted the second Levy sentence from the following paragraph, for reasons given above. The choice is now between the following versions (see highlighting in the Popper/Grunbaum paragraph and in the following paragraph).[14] Esterson (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If my latest attempt to resolve the current dispute is generally accepted by editors here, I suggest that further discussion of the need to overhaul the Freud page be continued on the Freud Talk page as Polisher of Cobwebs has suggested, preferably in a new section devoted to that issue.Esterson (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I accept Esterton's latest version, there now having been compromises on both sides (involving more than tweaking, I might add). @SGCM - yes for the third time, I do understand NPOV does not mean equal weight nor, for the third time, has anyone ever argued for it in this dispute. Back to the Talk Page. Almanacer (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer: Thank you for your gracious acceptance of my latest attempt to resolve this issue. I hope that now other editors have become involved in discussing more generally the deficiencies of the Freud page as currently constituted they will contribute concrete proposals for revision/overhaul on the Freud Talk page. Esterson (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You’re most welcome, and thank you for ignoring SGCM’s latest unhelpful attempt to prolong this dispute. Almanacer (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

@Esterson. Thank you for your work. The compromise you proposed is amenable to all the parties, and this DRN case can be closed as resolved. @Almanacer. I'll ignore that backhanded compliment. But, thank you for participating and for being willing to work with Esterson to reach a compromise.--SGCM (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Sleigh Bells discography (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fezmar9 (talk · contribs)
• Erpert (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Erpert recently created the article Sleigh Bells discography. I noticed a number of small issues, including that some of the songs he listed as singles were not, in fact, released as singles (i.e., a type of musical release that can be purchased or obtained independent of the parent album). For the duration the argument, Erpert has maintained that music videos and singles are one and time same. I disagree and maintain (which is consistent with what the Song and Discography Projects believe) singles and music videos are two separate entities. While singles can have a corresponding music video for promotional or artistic purposes, a single can also exist without a music video, and likewise, a music video can exist without there being a single for the same song. On multiple occasions I have asked Erpert to provide any sort of evidence to support the songs he is calling singles have actually been released as singles, but instead he insists he has already provided this evidence, and that I should provide evidence to support music videos and singles are different things.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A third opinion was requested, but the arguing seemed to get worse after someone commented. Erpert did not want to participate in the third opinion's solution of illustrating both of our positions with a list. I also reached out to two WikiProjects (Songs and Discographies) and a response from Michig supports my view, but Erpert still wants to see some sort of source supporting the idea that singles and music videos are two different things.

How do you think we can help?

I'm not really sure what to say here, I just really want this long-winded argument over something so trivial to finally be put to rest. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's much of a middle ground here. Either a song was released as a single or it wasn't. I guess just evaluate both of our arguments and go from there?

The overview that Fezmar stated is so unbalanced. The talk page in question clearly shows that I have explained each of my actions every time more than once, so I'm not going to do that again here. What I will say is the same simple solution I gave Fezmar: if he (or anyone else) thinks a music video and a single are not the same thing, find a source that says so. And his stating that the music video and single (music) articles don't back up my claim is inaccurate. It's not that they don't say the two terms aren't the same; they don't mention them (in other words, there's no argument either way). There's a difference. Basically, the way I see it is, Fezmar is forum shopping because he doesn't like the way the third opinion came out, which is really disruptive (and yes, I'll admit that I said canvassing at first; I meant forum shopping). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 01:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I'm a DRN volunteer and I would like to point out that the status of any particular release should be properly sources. If the sources say it is a single, then it should get reported as single. I would also ask parties to be more exact on disputed content – diffs and quotes are very welcome. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

On September 13, Erpert created the article for Sleigh Bells discography. Later in the day I performed a series of edits to clean up the article, all of which had detailed edit summaries: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. All of these edits, I thought, were fairly unobjectionable from what I've experienced in 5+ years of editing music related articles such as discographies and albums. Erpert's following edit[20] reverted the majority of my edits (a comparison of the article before and after my edits shows he only accepted my addition of two music videos[21]) and this is what started the talk page discussion. Most of the other issues were more or less resolved, but the singles issue still remained. I have been requesting that sources be provided to support that some of these songs were truly released as singles throughout most of the discussion, even going so far as to place citation needed tags on the article where I thought they were necessary[22][23], but they were quickly removed with either no edit summary[24] or "see talk page"[25] though no sources exist on the talk page, nor was removing the tags discussed on the talk page. Starting with Erpert's opening comment[26] he has been insisting that he has already provided sources, and that there's no reason for the discussion to continue. At first I was really confused by this since there's not one source in the "Singles" section of the article, nor are there any on the talk page. Through the discussion it was apparent that Erpert was under the impression the sources in the "Music videos" section constituted as evidence of a single. However, this is not the case. Music videos are promotional tools often associated with songs that have been released as singles, but are not singles themselves and can often be filmed for songs that were never released as a single. So then the discussion turned into an argument about the difference between a music video and a single, with Erpert saying things like, "there still has been no source provided that differentiates between music video and single." I had trouble with this discussion because I couldn't really find anywhere on wikipedia where it explicitly states these are two different things to support my argument. I also couldn't really fathom why wikipedia would or should have this written somewhere for the same reason I don't think apples and oranges need to be explicitly differentiated. I reached out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies for some support requesting either someone link me to a previous consensus of singles being different from music videos or inviting someone to join the discussion. An editor responded with a definition of singles and music videos that was consistent with what I had been arguing all along.[27] Also, since opening this DRN, an IP joined the discussion and provided a link to an old discussion[28]. As I note in my reply, while the subject of the old discussion isn't relevant, a lot of what the editors say and how they define a single does show evidence that music videos and singles are not the same thing. Fezmar9 (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Question to Erpert: as the statement that "music video" and "single" are synonymous terms sounds rather counter-intuitive and is already challenged, could you please provide sources supporting your position? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm really getting tired of repeating myself (to Fezmar, not to the rest of you), but...basically, all I really said is that if people think a music video does not automatically denote a single, all that has to be done is for someone to add a source stating so. And the fact that Fezmar says "I had trouble with this discussion because I couldn't really find anywhere on wikipedia where it explicitly states these are two different things to support my argument" pretty much drives that point home (btw, "I also couldn't really fathom why wikipedia would or should have this written somewhere for the same reason I don't think apples and oranges need to be explicitly differentiated" is a ridiculous comparison). The problem I'm really having here is that Fezmar didn't like the response from the third opinion, so he asked for more opinions on different noticeboards. And the fact that he has been working on discography-oriented articles for 5+ years is irrelevant, but speaking of that, after being here all this time, I would think he'd know well enough that forum shopping isn't cool. And then he says I'm being disruptive? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping is defined as "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators" because I didn't like the response from one, so I went to another. I have only raised this issue with DRN. I also invited two WikiProjects to either weigh in or direct me to a previous consensus. An IP directed me to a previous consensus, and an editor at WP:DISCOGS weighed in in support of music videos and singles being different things. The issue was raised at WP:3O by Erpert. The editor who contributed a third opinion stated: "A single needs to have been published independently to the general public, and in my mind, needs to have been marketed as a separate product in some capacity. I don't know if we necessarily need a source to declare that it was a single, but if none at all can be located, then that is a very good hint that it was not a single in any meaningful sense." This opinion does not claim nor suggest that music videos are one and the same. Then the third opinion suggested: "Maybe it would help if you both made a list of each disputed track, the nature of its release, and any sources to back up the claims (if they exist)." I started this list on the talk page, but Erpert refused to participate. I didn't open up a DRN because other forums weren't supporting my idea, I opened up a DRN because other forums were supporting my idea and because Erpert refused to participate in the third opinion's resolution proposal and the argument could have gone on forever with our back-and-forth. Thus my behavior is far from forum shopping. If anyone is shopping, Erpert, it's you as you have been policy shopping. In the duration of this discussion I have been wrongly accused of refusing or failing to to adhere to an established consensus[29], holding a personal grudge[30], disruptively editing Wikipedia to prove a point[31], inappropriate canvassing[32], not liking one opinion and shopping for another[33], not assuming good faith[34], calling Erpert disruptive when I was allegedly being disruptive and trying to win[35], and not letting the argument go[36] in a completely irrelevant discussion. Erpert, you seem to be spending most of your time coming up with a new theory as to why my argument is invalid, when you should be spending your time coming up with evidence to support your argument. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Does it say forum shopping is limited to those two examples though? Anyway, you know very well why I didn't participate in the list, so stop acting like you don't. BTW, are you familiar with the term "talking loud but not saying nothin'"? You seem to be doing that, not to mention following a lot of WP:TLDR. You go on and on along this rant, yet you have failed to say what exactly is wrong with my simple suggestion: providing a source stating that a music video does not automatically equal a single. This discussion should have been resolved weeks ago, but for some bizarre reason you just keep holding on. Why are you so invested in this? For the love of God, chill out. (I haven't even touched the article in weeks.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"Single" =/= "music video". A single is something you can buy, for which a music video often acts as a promotional device for. There are countless examples I can give of singles released after the advent of MTV that don't have videos, and videos made for non-singles. For example, Nirvana's "All Apologies" was definitely a single, but no music video for it was made. Pearl Jam pointedly refused to make music videos for its singles for years. Conversely, during its indie label years R.E.M. made videos for several non-singles, including "Wolves, Lower", "Feeling Gravitys Pull", and "Life and How to Live It". In the case of Reckoning, they made a short film called Left of Reckoning to soundtrack its entire first half. Sonic Youth had videos made for every track off its 1990 album Goo, but that album only yielded three singles. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• But where's the source that says "single" =/= "music video"? Isn't that a simple request? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not really, because that presumes that someone at some point found a reason to explicitly state "A music video is not a single", which like is saying "a poster ad is not a TV episode". It's somewhat of a ridiculous thing to say. I can provide sources that establish certain albums only yielded certain singles even if videos for made for album tracks, definitely (R.E.M. is the easiest to do right off the cuff, as one biography I own has a list of all their singles up to 2001, and "Wolves, Lower", "Feeling Gravitys Pull", and "Life and How to Live It" definitely are not included). As someone who's worked in various aspects of the music industry, I can tell you a music video is not automatically a single, but of course I don't count as a citeable source. But they are definitely not synonymous concepts, and anyone who thinks so is misinformed. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Erpert, this falls under Wikipedia:Fringe theories which states: "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article about a fringe view (or organization) should not make it appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

The fact is, you have made a claim that Music videos count as a single. They do not and I am unfamiliar with this interpretation. A Single (music) is described as: "a type of release, typically a recording of fewer tracks than an LP record or an album. This can be released for sale to the public in a variety of different formats. In most cases, the single is a song that is released separately from an album, but it usually appears on an album. Often, these are the most popular songs from albums that are released separately for promotional uses such as commercial radio airplay, and in other cases a recording released as a single does not appear on an album."

A Release (music) is: "In the music industry, a release is usually a term referring to the creative output from an artist available for sale or distribution; a broad term covering the many different formats music can be released in, and different forms of pieces (singles, albums, extended plays, etc.).".

This apears to be original research and not supported by mainstream academic sources. You are also beginning to skate on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• If you are honestly accusing me of WP:IDHT, then you must have missed the entire discussion on the original talk page. Anyway, your saying "[music videos] do not [count as singles] and I am unfamiliar with this interpretation" reeks of WP:IDONTKNOWIT, which isn't necessarily a valid reason to challenge something. On the discography article where I sourced the directors of each music video, if you look at each source, they all say something along the lines of, "The video for this single by Sleigh Bells was directed by..." If you think what is said in those sources are inaccurate, well, that's covered by WP:V. (BTW, Release (music) only has a single source, which is a dead link.)

Now, regardless of not including a source that states music videos are not necessarily singles, if all of you showed up with these comments right after I requested a third opinion, that would make sense. Instead, you all showed up weeks later, after Fezmar's forum shopping (which I am not faulting any of you for). You may not agree with me here, but are you honestly saying you don't see where I'm coming from? (I could also throw in WP:NOTAVOTE.) As I said before, this should have been resolved weeks ago. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, it is a fringe concept that Music Videos count as a single. They do not. Period. Main stream academic and journalist sources do not refer to a video as a release for sale or as a single. Singles can have a video and still be a single release. Not every video is a single release. You may or may not be making this as apint of your dispute but others did. Now. Stop talking about editor behavior and work out the content. You can template this discussion all you want, but thowing up abbreviated links without expalining how they apply is not helping. So, I take it you have worked this out and are willing to compromise or are you at the point that your feel the next step in DR is more suitable. A third opinion did not work and you are certainly not working towards improving the article here. I suggest you limit further discussion on this DR/N to content. If you have nothing left to discuss here let us know so we can close this filing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I am closing this as resolved as there is a rough consensus against refering to a music video as a single or that music videos can be considered as a single.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW Wikipedia editing includes much personal judgement. Apart from reporting the statements from sources we are supposed to match sources' content to general knowledge on subject, neutrality and actually truth to some degree. A typical occurrence of such practice is dismissal of citation requests per WP:V, when the material isn't likely to be challenged or is plain wrong. Indeed, there are problems with finding sources that could disband blatantly wrong and incredible claims (eg. it's hard or even impossible to find a source disbanding claims that Babylon was relocated to Mars or that people normally have two heads). This issue falls into this category: there is no need in providing reference supporting the statement that music videos and singles are different things, as this is quite obvious and nobody ever dared to claim otherwise in print. Furthermore, per WP:BURDEN the author of a challenged material is the person responsible for referencing. As the talk page and article history reveal, it was the implication of these terms equivalence which was challenged, so instead of asking for sources saying otherwise Erpert should have provided sources himself or remove challenged material. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Randy Savage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• null (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

The late wrestler Randy Savage has his name given as Randall Mario Poffo. I believe that this is a vandalism dating back many years. I think that his real name is just Randy. When he died, many news sources gave his name as Randall, but I believe that they simply got their false information from Wikipedia, leading to an erroneous loop. I can find no true public records, yearbook photos, or classic newspaper articles giving his name as Randall. Prior to the edit in 2005 that changed his name to Randall, there appear to be no Google results for Randall Poffo, either. I think it is a vandalism that has snowballed out of control.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I left a comment on the talk page, but nobody replied. I changed his name to Randy, stating clearly that I can see no proof of his real name being Randall, but somebody just reverted my edit.

How do you think we can help?

I don't know. I don't like the idea of this poor dead guy's name (literally, his name) being tarnished by what might be ancient vandalism. I don't know what the official "word" is considered to be on a celebrity's real name. I'd like input from somebody who is knowledgeable about these things.

Pinellas County public records, his obituary, yearbook photos etc, agree with me, "Randy".

Wikipedia itself and many other sites with not very strict factual policies agree with "Randall".

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:EU (2012) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hobbes (talk · contribs)
• Robbx213 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I made an edit to the table that goes in the EU (2012) page to make the table's layout/structure more consistent with the game. Hobbes reverted the edit twice in ~11 hrs, without communication, and used Admin abilities to protect the Table. My basic argument is that the Table needs to mirror the game, which would be consistent with Wiki style guidance. Hobbes' argument seems to center on consistency with the old game's format and the notion that the Geoscape (actually the Globe) somehow constitutes the strategic layer of the game even though it is not even the name of the one facility in the entire Base that constitutes the strategic layer.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None, since Hobbes' answers in the Discussion give the impression that I need to simply accept 'official policy'.

How do you think we can help?

Gather opinions from other experienced editors on Wiki style guidance. Also, evaluate whether admin abilities were abused.

I think the Table that represents the main page for XCOM: EU (2012) should be formatted consistent with the actual game rather than consistent with the format from the old 1994 game. There should not be a major heading for 'The Geoscape' because it no longer exists as it once did. 'The Globe' is a feature in the Mission Control facility inside the XCOM base (aka Ant Farm). There are many facilities; the base as a whole constitutes how the player deals with the strategy layer. Therefore, 'XCOM HQ' should be the major heading and only major themes under that should be listed in the main page Table. Those themes include Base Facilities, Research, and Manufacturing/Production. Individual facilities should not be listed on the main page, rather deeper in the HQ or Base Facilities pages. The Lead Developer for the game doesn't even call it Geoscape, he called it Globe, and it's not even the title of the facility in which it resides. The wiki should mirror the game so that it's easy for people to find information quickly. They want to search in a manner consistent with the game's formatting. Anything else will confuse them and ultimately limit the Wiki's usefulness. I also think it is inappropriate to revert someone's edits twice in ~11 hrs without commentary and then use Admin rights to 'protect' the Table. User:Robbx213 205.254.147.8 (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.